You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF THE DNA PROFILE AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS UPON BEING ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, RESPONDENT JUDGE DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER EXPUNGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, granted a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-judge to consider whether the expungement of DNA evidence derived from a sample provided with petitioner’s consent after arrest is appropriate. The petitioner was subsequently adjudicated a youthful offender (YO) and sought expungement on that ground. The DNA evidence is maintained by the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). The First Department concluded that the OCME is subject to the State Executive Law and a court has the discretionary authority to expunge the YO’s DNA profile from the SDIS (index system used for mutual exchange, use and storage of DNA records), along with the underlying DNA records:

[Re: the propriety of the Article 78 proceeding:] In the absence of an available remedy at law (see CPL 450.20), the important issues raised on this appeal will escape this Court’s review unless this petition proceeds … . Moreover, this Court has original jurisdiction over the issues raised because they concern a sitting justice (CPLR 506[b][1]; 7804[b] …). …

There is abundant support for the conclusion that OCME’s responsibilities in testing, analyzing and retaining DNA data is subject to the State Executive Law. Respondent’s arguments that the statutory reference to a “state” DNA identification index in Article 49-B necessarily excludes a local DNA laboratory like that the one operated by OCME, is unavailing. …

… [W]e hold that the same discretion afforded to a court under the Executive Law to expunge DNA profiles and related records when a conviction is vacated may also be exercised where, as here, a YO disposition replaces a criminal conviction. The motion court, in finding that, as a matter of law, it had no discretion, failed to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider whether in the exercise of discretion, expungement of petitioner’s DNA records was warranted in this case. …

Petitioner did not, either expressly or by implication, waive the privilege of nondisclosure and confidentiality by providing his DNA before the court made its determination that he was eligible for YO status. Clearly the Executive Law permits an adult who has voluntarily given his or her DNA in connection with a criminal investigation the right to seek discretionary expungement where a conviction had been reversed or vacated. A youthful offender does not have and should not be afforded fewer pre-YO adjudication protections than an adult in the equivalent circumstances. Matter of Samy F. v Fabrizio, 2019 NY Slip Op 04120, First Dep 5-28-19

 

, , ,

MOLINEUX/SANDOVAL HEARING IN THE HARVEY WEINSTEIN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PROSECUTION WAS PROPERLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE RECORD OF THE HEARING WAS PROPERLY SEALED, NEWS-MEDIA COMPANIES’ PETITION TO UNSEAL THE RECORD DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the Article 78 petition brought by news-media companies seeking to unseal the Molineux/Sandoval hearing transcript in the felony sexual misconduct prosecution of Harvey Weinstein. The presiding judge had closed the hearing to the public and sealed the record of it:

While the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … , this right of access may be limited where courtroom closure is necessitated by a compelling state governmental interest, and where the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … . Such compelling interests may include the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to “fundamental fairness in the jury selection process” … . …

Proceedings cannot be closed unless specific findings are made on the record, demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest” … . Where the interest asserted is the right of the accused to a fair trial, specific findings must be made demonstrating that, “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,” and “reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights” … .

The subject matter of the Molineux /Sandoval hearing – allegations of prior uncharged sexual offenses by the defendant, the admissibilty of which is disputed – was likely to be prejudicial and inflammatory. Further, some or all of the allegations may have been determined to be inadmissible at trial, or may not be offered at trial even if found potentially admissible. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public. Matter of New York Times Co. v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 03903, First Dept 5-16-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION BASED UPON REMARKS MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING SUMMATION, REMARKS TO WHICH NO OBJECTION HAD BEEN MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in this personal injury case should not have been granted. The jury found that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of the no-fault law (Insurance Law § 5102(d)), and awarded plaintiff $50,000 for lost wages, reduced by $25,000 for failure to wear a seatbelt. The trial judge granted the motion in the interest of justice primarily based upon comments made by defense counsel during summation, comments to which no objection was made:

… [T]he Supreme Court identified eight specific statements made by defense counsel in his closing that the court characterized as improper, in addition to the remarks quoted above. However, none of these statements were objected to. We recognize that common courtesy requires that an attorney allow opposing counsel the opportunity to argue his or her case to the jury without undue or repetitive interruptions. Nevertheless, where counsel, in summing up, exceeds the bounds of legal propriety, it is the duty of the opposing counsel to make a specific objection and for the court to rule on the objection, to direct the jury to disregard any improper remarks, and to admonish counsel from repetition of improper remarks … . Where objection is not, or cannot appropriately be, interposed during summation, counsel should, upon the conclusion of the summation, make appropriate objections, seek curative instructions, or request a mistrial … . Where no objection is interposed, a new trial may be directed only where the remarks are so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice, and where the comments are so pervasive, prejudicial, or inflammatory as to deprive a party of a fair trial … . This standard was not met in this case. We stress that the plaintiff’s counsel made no complaint regarding the allegedly prejudicial nature of the defendant’s closing statement until after an adverse verdict was rendered. The verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury was supported by the evidence, and the jury had ample reason to reject the plaintiff’s claims and accept the arguments of the defendants.

Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from, deny the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the issue of damages, and reinstate the jury verdict. Kleiber v Fichtel, 2019 NY Slip Op 03778, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR TO QUESTION DEFENDANT ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE SANDOVAL RULING, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the trial judge implicitly changed the Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about the underlying facts of prior convictions:

Prior to the trial, the Supreme Court conducted a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), after which the court ruled that, should the defendant testify on his own behalf, the People would be permitted to ask whether he had two prior felony convictions. However, the People were not permitted to elicit the underlying facts of either of those crimes. …

Without seeking an amendment of the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor then asked whether he was being arrested that day in 2008 “because there was a DNA match of [him] committing a burglary.” Defense counsel objected, the objection was overruled, and the defendant denied that this was true. The prosecutor persisted in that line of inquiry, and asked whether the defendant had been convicted of burglary in the third degree in 2009. The defendant responded that “[y]es [he] was convicted of a case in 2008.” Nonetheless, without asking for a modified Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor brought up, no less than six times, that the 2008 conviction was for burglary and involved DNA, going so far to ask the defendant to “explain” the facts of his 2008 conviction, with the court instructing the defendant to do so. In one instance, after asking the defendant to confirm that he was charged in the instant case with burglary in the second degree, the prosecutor remarked, in effect, that the instant crime was “the same type of DNA hit that happened back in 2008.” …

The defendant here was denied … [the right to make an informed choice whether to testify] when, after making what he believed to be an informed judgment and taking the witness stand, the Supreme Court implicitly changed the ruling upon which he relied by allowing the prosecutor to continue her course of prejudicial questioning despite objections from defense counsel. People v Walters, 2019 NY Slip Op 03632, Second Dept 5-8-19

 

,

PROVIDING WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL, HOT LIQUID CAN BE A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that “defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court provided written instructions to the jury, at its request, but over defendant’s objection (see People v Johnson , 81 NY2d 980 [1993]).”  The court also noted that the jury could have reasonably found that the hot liquid thrown by defendant qualified as a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[10],[13]; see also People v Adolph , 299 AD2d 257, 257 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 579 [2003]).”  People v Peralta, 2019 NY Slip Op 03539, First Dept 5-7-19

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE’S NEGOTIATION OF A PLEA DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT, IN RETURN FOR THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ESSENTIAL TESTIMONY IDENTIFYING THE DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS DEPICTED IN A VIDEO, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurrence, reversing the Appellate Division, determined  the trial judge had deprived defendant of a fair trial by negotiating a plea agreement directly with the co-defendant in return for the co-defendant’s testimony against the defendant. Although the defendant and co-defendant in this robbery case were captured on video, their faces were covered. At trial the co-defendant identified the defendant as the person depicted in the video:

It is undisputed that, as the Appellate Division concluded, the trial court “personally negotiate[ed] and enter[ed] into a quid pro quo cooperation agreement with the codefendant whereby the court promised to sentence the codefendant within a specific range in exchange for his testimony against defendant” (151 AD3d at 1639). In so doing, the trial court improperly “assume[d] the advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel” … and ventured from its own role as a neutral arbiter “[s]tationed above the clamor of counsel or the partisan pursuit of procedural or substantive advantage” … . Indeed, whatever its subjective intentions, the trial court effectively procured a witness in support of the prosecution by inducing the codefendant to testify concerning statements the codefendant made to police—which identified defendant as one of the robbers—in exchange for the promise of a more lenient sentence. Significantly, by tying its assessment of the truthfulness of the codefendant’s testimony to that individual’s prior statements to police, the trial court essentially directed the codefendant on how the codefendant must testify in order to receive the benefit of the bargain … . Under these circumstances, the trial court’s conduct “conflicted impermissibly with the notion of fundamental fairness” … . That is, by assuming the function of an interested party and deviating from its own role as a neutral arbiter, the trial court denied defendant his due process right to “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal” (In re Murchison, 349 US at 136). This error is not subject to harmless error review and requires reversal … . People v Towns, 2019 NY Slip Op 03527, CtApp 5-7-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS ON A GROUND OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s SORA risk assessment, determined that the judge’s assessing points on a ground of which defendant was not given prior notice was a violation of due process. The issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice (there was no objection at the SORA hearing):

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine his or her risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the risk level assessment” . As a result, “[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned” … , and “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . Here, neither the Board nor the People requested the assessment of points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct on the ground that defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact with the victim over a period of at least two weeks … . At the conclusion of the SORA hearing, however, the court proceeded to assign additional points under that category on the ground that the grand jury testimony of the victim’s mother established that there was a third uncharged incident of sexual contact. Defendant was never provided any notice that points would be assessed as a result of a third uncharged incident and thus was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the court’s risk level assessment. People v Chrisley, 2019 NY Slip Op 03505, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

, , ,

RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A SMALL CLAIMS ACTION, NO NEED TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL TO BRING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ACTION AGAINST A FORMER PARTNER IN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) although the Small Claims Act provides that collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) does not apply to fact-findings made in a small claims action, the doctrine of res judicata does apply to any issue which could have been, but was not, raised in the small claims action; (2) a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action does not entail piercing the corporate veil in a proceeding against a former partner in a professional corporation; (3) the judge should not have searched the record to render summary judgment when neither party requested that relief:

… “[T]he elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, it is not necessary to pierce the corporate veil in order to maintain a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty against former partners in a professional corporation. …

Since … neither party moved for summary judgment with respect to the counterclaims and none of the issues raised in the first, second, or third counterclaims were litigated in the summary judgment motion, or the small claims action, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment dismissing those counterclaims … . Weinberg v Picker, 2019 NY Slip Op 03400, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, VACATED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION OR REQUEST, NO APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM A SUA SPONTE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge did not have the authority to vacate a default judgment in absence of a request for that relief. The First Department treated the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal, noting that a sua sponte order is not appealable as of right:

While an order entered sua sponte is not appealable as of right … , given the lack of evidence of the timeliness of the service of the answer and given the motion court’s failure to identify a legal basis for vacating the prior order, we deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal, and grant leave … .

The court exceeded its authority in sua sponte vacating the prior order granting plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment … . In the absence of a motion or other request for relief from the order, the court’s discretion to correct the order was limited to curing any mistake, defect or irregularity “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019[a]). Betts v Tsitiridis, 2019 NY Slip Op 02970, First Dept 4-22-19

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court was without power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute because the preconditions in CPLR 3216 were not met. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action, finding that plaintiff bank had not complied with an oral directive issued at a status conference:

Following settlement conferences held pursuant to CPLR 3408, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. In an order … (hereinafter the dismissal order), the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with an oral directive issued at a status conference … , to resume prosecution of the action. …[T]he plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the calendar. [T]he Supreme Court … denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . Specifically, issue must have been joined, at least one year must have elapsed since joinder of issue, the defendant or the court must have served on the plaintiff a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and the plaintiff must have failed to serve and file a note of issue within the 90-day period (see CPLR 3216[b] …). Here, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the action on the ground of failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was not served with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Ferrari, 2019 NY Slip Op 02847, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy