You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

PROVIDING COUNSEL WITH “MEANINGFUL NOTICE” OF THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE READING THE NOTE INTO THE RECORD VERBATIM; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the convictions, over a two-justice dissent. determined the judge did not commit a mode of proceedings error when responding to two notes from the jury. The dissenters argued the notes should have been read into the record “verbatim:”

In People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]), the Court of Appeals in addressing the “notice” requirement contained in CPL 310.30, held that “notice” means “meaningful” notice to counsel of the “actual specific content of the jurors’ request” … . * * *

O’Rama suggested that upon receipt of a written jury request, the note should be marked as a jury exhibit before the jury is recalled into the courtroom and read into the record in the presence of counsel. After the contents are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. Finally, the court should read the communication in open court in the presence of counsel, the defendant and the jury … . However, failure to strictly follow this suggested procedure does not always result in a violation of the notice requirements of CPL 310.30 or rise to the level of a mode of proceedings error, as the designation of a mode of proceedings error is “reserved for the most fundamental flaws. The error must go to the essential validity of the process and be so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted” … . * * *

… [S]trict adherence to the “best practice” procedure suggested in O’Rama is not required so long as the fundamental purpose of CPL 310.30 is achieved, which is providing counsel with meaningful notice of the contents of a jury note so that counsel has an opportunity to provide meaningful input to the court’s response. People v Vilella, 2026 NY Slip Op 00097, First Dept 1-13-26

Practice Point: The majority held that providing counsel with “meaningful notice” of the contents of a jury not did not require reading the note into the record verbatim. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

, , ,

THE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (RETALIATION) ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PRECLUDED A RELITIGATION OF THE RETALIATION CLAIMS IN STATE COURT PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination (retaliation) cause of action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) was collaterally estopped by the dismissal of plaintiff’s action in federal court pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL):

Plaintiff asserts that his cooperation in [an] investigation [of another employee] provoked animus from his supervisors … who allegedly retaliated by reducing his business opportunities and ultimately terminating him.

Plaintiff alleged seven discrete adverse employment actions: (1) the artificial depression of his revenue; (2) denial of his request to transfer to a new position; (3) reassignment of his clients; (4) denial of funding to attend conferences; (5) a negative performance review; (6) no bonus in 2015; and (7) termination in August 2016. * * *

The City HRL is “uniquely broad and remedial,” requiring courts to construe its provisions “independently from similar or identical provisions of New York state or federal statutes” … . However, the requirement to interpret the City HRL under a more liberal lens does not relieve plaintiff of his burden to produce evidence of a retaliatory motive behind the adverse actions.

* * * Plaintiff’s arguments … invite relitigating facts already adjudicated by two federal courts after full and fair litigation. The federal courts expressly found no retaliatory animus after reviewing extensive evidence. … [T]his compels preclusion.

We emphasize that the City HRL’s liberal construction rule lowers the causation threshold, not the evidentiary one. Once the federal record established the absence of any retaliatory motive, no genuine factual issue remained even under the City HRL’s mixed-motive framework. To allow this case to go to a jury under the guise of liberal construction finds no support in the record. Abromavage v Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00052, First Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Here the federal courts’ dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination (retaliation) claims pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) precluded relitigation of those claims in state court pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Consult this opinion for insight into when collateral estoppel will be invoked to preclude a state action under the NYCHRL which raises retaliation claims identical to those dismissed by the federal courts under the NYSHRL. Although the NYCHRL lowers the causation threshold in comparison with the NYSHRL, it does not lower the evidentiary threshold.

 

,

A MARRIAGE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A MARRIAGE LICENSE WILL BE DEEMED VALID IN NEW YORK IF THE MARRIAGE IS “SOLEMNIZED;” HERE THE CEREMONY PERFORMED BY THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DEEMED A “FAMILY BLESSING,” NOT A “MARRIAGE,” BECAUSE THE “SOLEMNIZATION” REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, determined the parties in this divorce proceeding had never been married:

In this action for divorce, we are asked to determine whether the parties are validly married under the New York Domestic Relations Law despite not obtaining a marriage license prior to their alleged wedding ceremony. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 25, a marriage is not void for failure to obtain a marriage license if the marriage is solemnized. A marriage is solemnized under Domestic Relations Law § 12 when a couple solemnly declares in the presence of a clergyman, magistrate, or one-day marriage officiant and attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as spouses. Even when the parties do not make this solemn declaration that they take each other as spouses, a marriage will still be valid without a license pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 12 when the marriage is solemnized in the manner used and practiced in the couple’s respective denomination. As we find that neither of these scenarios occurred, we hold that the parties are not validly married pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law.

On July 29, 2017, the parties took part in a baptism of their son at a Coptic Orthodox Church performed by Bishop Anba David of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of New York and New England and attended by the church’s priest, Father Gregory Saroufeem. After the baptism was completed, plaintiff was asked if she wished to be baptized into the Coptic Orthodox Church. She assented, and after plaintiff underwent certain preparations, the Bishop performed the baptism.

After the second baptism, plaintiff contends that the Bishop asked if she and defendant wished to be married, she and defendant agreed, and the Bishop performed an impromptu wedding ceremony. Defendant contends that the ceremony was a family blessing and not a marriage. It is undisputed that the parties did not have a marriage license, did not exchange rings, made no vows during the ceremony and did not execute a certificate of marriage, among other traditional requirements of the Coptic Church. Funti v Andrews, 2026 NY Slip Op 00012, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A marriage entered into without first obtaining a marriage license is valid in New York if the marriage is “solemnized.” Consult this opinion for a description of the :solemnization” requirements (which were not met here).

 

,

THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND DEFENDANT’S LIMITED HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE DID NOT WARRANT A PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING CONSENT TO SEARCHES FOR WEAPONS, DRUGS AND OTHER CONTRABAND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department struck the probation condition requiring defendant’s consent to searches for weapons, drugs and other contraband:

The court improperly imposed, as a condition of defendant’s probation, a requirement that he consent to a search by his probation officer of his person, vehicle, or home for weapons, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and other contraband. Defendant was not armed with a weapon during the underlying offense and had no history of violence or use of weapons … . Defendant did not have a history of abusing illicit substances and was not assessed as being in need of drug abuse treatment … . Although defendant admitted to a limited history of alcohol abuse, before and at the time of the instant offense, the consent-search condition, as written, “is not limited to conform” to the “certain limited circumstances where alcohol becomes contraband for the purposes of” that condition … . People v Aquirre, 2026 NY Slip Op 00025, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: The First Department struck a probation condition requiring consent to searches for weapons, drugs and other contraband, which was not justified by the underlying offense or defendant’s limited history of alcohol abuse.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure action should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an evidentiary ground which was not raised by the defendant:

Plaintiff … moved for summary judgment, submitting an affirmation by counsel, to which the loan documents were annexed, and an affidavit from the same first vice president, which did not attach the subject loan documents. The affiant attested that defendant failed to make monthly payments and that defendant owed plaintiff $2,302,848.55 through June 15, 2024. He did not attest that he based his knowledge of the default and amount due on his review of any records. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion.

… Although it is the movant’s burden to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and the failure of the nonmovant to oppose summary judgment does not obviate the movant’s need to establish its prima facie case … , “a court should not examine the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party has specifically raised that issue in its opposition to the motion” … . This is because courts “are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … .

On its original motion, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing, through the affidavit of a first vice president who was also the loan officer in charge of the loan’s collection and enforcement, the existence of the consolidated note, consolidated mortgage, and the existence and amount of defendant’s default … . Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence, and the court should not have raised evidentiary objections sua sponte … . Valley Natl. Bank v Community Prot. Church of Co-op City, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00036, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, deny a motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the nonmoving party.

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING ASSOCIATION WITH GANGS WAS STRICKEN BECAUSE THE CONDITION WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE OR DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND A LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, striking a probation condition, determined the condition prohibiting defendant’s association with gangs was not related to defendant’s rehabilitation: The First Department noted that the issue survives a waiver of appeal and a lack of preservation:

Defendant’s appeal waiver does not foreclose her challenges to the legality of the conditions of her probation under Penal Law § 65.10(1) and do not require preservation … . …

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken because there is no evidence that defendant’s actions were connected to gang activity or that she had a history of gang membership, rendering this condition neither reasonably related to her rehabilitation nor necessary to ensure that she leads a law-abiding life ( … Penal Law § 65.10[1]). People v Johnson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00029, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: The appellate courts are striking probation conditions not shown to be relevant to the underlying offense or criminal history.

Same issue and result in People v Seymore, 2026 NY Slip Op 00028, First Dept 1-6-25

 

, , , ,

THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, holding defendant’s plea and sentencing in abeyance, remitted the matter for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine whether the seizure of a gun dropped by the defendant was facilitated by unlawful police conduct. In the omnibus motions defendant argued that he dropped the gun as a spontaneous response to the police officers’ approaching and then chasing him without reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the People agreed defendant was entitled to a hearing. The contested issue on appeal was whether the order denying the suppression motion “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” rendered the order nonfinal and therefore unappealable. The First Department determined the order was final:

The issue in contention on this appeal is whether the court’s summary denial of defendant’s suppression motion — which ended with the statement that the motion “is denied, with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” — qualifies as an “order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” which would preserve the suppression issue for appeal under CPL 710.70(2). While phrases like “leave to renew” or “leave to submit” may be some indicia of a lack of finality under CPL 710.70(2), they do not, standing alone, render a court’s ruling nonfinal. * * *

… [T]he court incorrectly rejected the defendant’s detailed recitation of his suppression theory and there was no further evidence produced by the People that could bolster defendant’s theory on renewal.

Accordingly, we remit to Supreme Court to hold a Mapp/Dunaway hearing. People v Diaby, 2025 NY Slip Op 07343, First Dept 12-30-25

Practice Point: Here the People argued that the order denying a suppression hearing was nonfinal and therefore unappealable because it included the phrase “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations.” The First Department noted that this was not a case where additional evidence came to light which would have supported renewal and the defendant failed to make a renewal motion. Here no new evidence came to light. The denial of the suppression motion was therefore deemed a final, appealable order.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; NEW HEARINGS AND TRIAL ORDERED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering new hearings and a new trial, determined defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent:

Defendant’s criminal history, which included drug possession and sale convictions dating back to 1992, and his in-court remarks regarding his history of substance abuse issues and present drug use constituted a “red flag” which should have triggered at least a brief inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity and comprehension of the proceedings … . The record also does not “affirmatively disclose” that the court “delved into [] defendant’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver” … . As the trial judge was only assigned to defendant’s case about a month before trial, this was not a case where the judge “had numerous opportunities to see and hear defendant firsthand” to evaluate his knowledge and familiarity with the criminal justice system … .

Moreover, the court’s colloquy did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Although defendant correctly recited the charges against him, he also suggested that he could get convicted of additional charges, and the record does not reflect that he was ever informed of the potential aggregate sentence he faced after trial … . The court reminded defendant that he was “not trained as a lawyer” and did not “understand about cross-examination,” so it was “dangerous” and not in his best interests to proceed pro se; these “brief, generalized warnings do not satisfy the requirement for a searching inquiry” … . “The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant” … . People v Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 07231, First Dept 12-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a judge must explain to a defendant seeking to waive the right to counsel.

 

, , ,

THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION BY EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL; THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION PRECLUDES ACTIONS AGAINST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE; THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the-hostile work-environment causes of action by employees of a private Catholic high school should not have been dismissed pursuant to the “ministerial exception” which, in certain circumstances, will preclude employment discrimination actions against a religious institution:

Plaintiffs … were all employed by … a private Catholic school . The case stems from plaintiffs’ allegations that the school’s Principal … regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. Plaintiffs further allege that … the school’s Vice Principal … and … the school’s Dean of Men, regularly repeated [the Principal’s] vile language and assisted in his efforts to discriminate against staff. In addition, plaintiffs allege that … the head of defendant Archdiocese of New York … and the defendant Archdiocese knew about [the Principal’s] conduct but did nothing to stop it.

Plaintiffs’ claims for hostile work environment were improperly dismissed under the ministerial exception, which precludes some employment claims against religious institutions on First Amendment grounds … . Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct … . * * *

Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for [the Principal’s] appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants’ personnel decisions. Boliak v Reilly, 2025 NY Slip Op 07088, First Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Some employment discrimination actions against religious institutions are barred by the ministerial exception. Here the allegations plaintiffs, employees of a private Catholic School, were harassed by school officials did not require a court’s interference with religious doctrine and therefore were not precluded by the ministerial exception.​

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DIRECTED SERVICE UPON MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING “BY EMAIL” WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 75-G; ALLEGATIONS THAT MOTHER DESTROYED EVIDENCE OF SERVICE AND WAS AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE IRRELEVANT; THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court never acquired jurisdiction over mother in this modification of custody proceeding. Father was directed to serve mother by email and by Initiating international service through the US Central Authority, a method not compliant with Domestic Relations Law 75-g:

That statute requires that notice be given by personal delivery or by any form of mail requesting a receipt and that the court may only direct an alternative form of service upon a finding that “service is impracticable” by personal delivery or by mail. However, the father’s motion papers contained no indication that personal service or service by any form of mail requesting a receipt was “impracticable” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-g[1][c]). Therefore, the Family Court erred in directing service by email and the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the mother by the email service that was effectuated.

The father claims that the mother was personally served … . However, the record contains no affidavit of service on the mother. The father’s assertion in his brief that the mother destroyed evidence of service does not establish that lawful service was made, as it was his responsibility to prove that service was properly carried out in the first place … . Moreover, the fact that the mother became aware of the proceeding at some point … does not confer jurisdiction if there has not been compliance with the statutorily prescribed methods of service of process … . Matter of John F.B. v Maria U., 2025 NY Slip Op 06905, First Dept 12-11-25

Practice Point: Here father was directed by the court to serve mother by “email” which does not comply with Domestic Relations Law 75-g. The court never acquired jurisdiction over mother, despite her awareness of the proceedings.

 

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