You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the Certificates of Compliance filed by the People were improper and the statement of readiness was  illusory because evidence which could be used to impeach the credibility of one of the arresting officers (Lt. Ruiz) was not turned over. The indictment was dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. The opinion is comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

This appeal concerns the new disclosure obligations in criminal cases, enacted by the New York State Legislature, effective January 1, 2020, as part of sweeping criminal justice reform legislation under the new CPL article 245 … . The new legislation provides, inter alia, for “[a]utomatic” disclosure by the People to the defendant of “all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case” that are in the People’s possession or control (CPL 245.20[1]). Specifically, this appeal concerns CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), which requires that the People disclose “[a]ll evidence and information” that “tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness.” We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the People were required to disclose, pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), underlying records from a prior case where one of the prosecution witnesses was found to be incredible, and that the Supreme Court properly determined, based upon the record before it, that the People’s certificates of compliance were improper, properly struck a statement of readiness as illusory, and properly granted the defendants’ motions, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that they were deprived of their statutory right to a speedy trial. * * *

This Court holds that the underlying records in the case in which Lt. Ruiz’s testimony was found to be incredible did relate to the subject matter of this case for impeachment purposes … . Here, the underlying records pertaining to Lt. Ruiz’s incredible testimony, including the transcript of his testimony, did relate to the subject matter of the case because the material went toward the weight of the credibility of the witness and could be used for impeachment purposes. Therefore, the People were required to provide the records. People v Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a comprehensive discussion of the People’s obligation to provide “automatic” disclosure of evidence which can be used to impeach the credibility of an arresting officer.

 

, ,

THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop which culminated in the pursuit of the defendant and the seizure of the firearm in defendant’s possession. The testimony of the arresting officer, Tofalli, at the suppression hearing was deemed unworthy of belief. Therefore the People did not meet their initial burden at the hearing, i.e., proving the legality of the police conduct:

“‘In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . Reasonable suspicion exists where there is a “quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man [or woman] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” … . “A suspect’s flight alone or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might suggest a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit,” and “[p]ursuit is only authorized when flight is combined with circumstances indicating that the suspect might be engaged in criminal activity” … .

Here, the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Tofalli’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Tofalli’s testimony that when the defendant pulled up his pants he was able to see an “L-shape” outline in the defendant’s waistband while the initial target was standing two feet in front of the defendant directly between Tofalli and the defendant defies common sense and strains credulity. Moreover, Tofalli’s testimony was inconsistent with the notes he made in his memo book, arrest reports generated after the incident, and his testimony before the grand jury, none of which made any mention of the initial target … , and was further inconsistent with the recording obtained from Tofalli’s body-worn camera, which revealed that prior to his interaction with the initial target, the defendant was not touching his pants, and does not depict the defendant’s T-shirt tightening around an “L-shape” object. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we find Tofalli’s testimony unworthy of belief … . People v Black, 2025 NY Slip Op 01943, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The flight of the subject of a street stop, without some other indication of criminal activity, does not justify pursuit.

Practice Point: If the police testimony at the suppression hearing is not worthy of belief, the People have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Suppression must be granted.

 

THE TOWN DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TURN OVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CREDIBLY ALLEGED TO EXIST IN THE FOIL REQUEST; THE FOIL PETITION WAS REINSTATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined the Town did not adequately explain its refusal to turn over documents relating to an Amazon warehouse and distribution center that was to be built in the Town. Therefore the petition, which was dismissed by Supreme Court, was reinstated:

Here, Meyer [the appellant] credibly alleged the existence of records, such as email correspondence between Amazon and the Town and traffic studies which may have been undertaken in connection with the approval of the new warehouse and distribution center, which were not produced. When faced with a request for such records, the Town was required to “either disclose the record sought, deny the request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search” … . Merely representing that “[u]pon information and belief” all documents had been provided, as was averred by the Town’s FOIL appeals officer in connection with the Town’s motion, is insufficient to comply with the requirements of FOIL … . Matter of Meyer v Town of Hempstead, 2025 NY Slip Op 01930, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Here the FOIL request credibly alleged that certain documents existed. The Town’s response that “upon information and belief” all documents had been provided was not sufficient. The statute requires the Town to claim a specific exemption or certify it does not possess or could not locate the requested documents. The dismissed petition was reinstated.

 

,

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY TIMELY RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR MISSING THE 90-DAY DEADLINE; HERE THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE BUT THE MUNICIPALITY DID RECEIVE TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the absence of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive, determined petitioner should have been granted leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner, a plumber, allegedly tripped over a piece of rebar protruding from the ground at a construction site:

Here, while the petitioner concedes that his claim of clerical error does not qualify as a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the petitioner’s application” … .

While the lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive on an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “whether the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . Here, while there is no proof that the petitioner served the notice of claim upon NYCHA on January 27, 2020, NYCHA admits to receiving the first petition on or about January 31, 2020, less than three weeks after the expiration of the 90-day notice period. NYCHA additionally admits that it was able to schedule and conduct a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing with the petitioner on April 20, 2020. Matter of Herry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 01928, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: In determining a request for leave to file a late notice of claim, whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for failing to file the notice of claim within 90 days is less important than whether the municipality timely received actual notice of the claim. Here the excuse was not valid but the municipality received timely notice. The request for leave to file a late notice should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY WAS BASED ON A MISREPRESENTATION BY MOTHER AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING PATERNITY BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner was entitled to a hearing on the issues of whether petitioner’s (appellant’s) acknowledgment of paternity was procured by a misrepresentation by mother and, if so, whether the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the acknowledgment based on the best interests of the child. As is often the case in Family Court reversals, the failure to hold a hearing is the problem:

“Where . . . a party seeks to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution, Family Court Act § 516-a(b) requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine the issues of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact [in the execution of the acknowledgment of paternity] before ordering a [genetic marker test]” … . “In the event the court determines that a valid ground for vacatur of the acknowledgment exists, the issue of whether the petitioner should be estopped, in accordance with the child’s best interest, from vacating the acknowledgment of paternity, must [then also] be evaluated at a hearing” … . * * *

Here, the issue of the appellant’s paternity was not actually litigated in connection with the prior proceedings … . The Family Court’s findings … that the appellant, … would have been equitably estopped from seeking vacatur of the acknowledgment of paternity, were made without a hearing, during an appearance on the appellant’s petitions to modify custody and visitation, when, in response to the appellant raising the issue of his attempts to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, the attorney for the child indicated that the child viewed the appellant as her father. Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable … . Matter of Stephen B.J.B. v Marcia N.S.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01921, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The most frequent basis for Family Court reversals is the judge’s failure to hold a hearing before making a ruling.

 

, , , ,

MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, who was representing herself, was deprived of her right to due process in this termination of parental rights proceeding by “a confluence of factors:”

“A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights”. Nonetheless, “[a] parent’s right to be present for fact-finding and dispositional hearings in proceedings to terminate parental rights is not absolute” … . “The child whose guardianship and custody is at stake also has a fundamental right to a prompt and permanent adjudication” … . “Thus, when faced with the unavoidable absence of a parent, a court must balance the respective rights and interests of both the parent and the child in determining whether to proceed” … .

Here … the mother was deprived of her due process right to be present in the proceedings seeking to terminate her parental rights. First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment … . Notably, the record does not indicate that the mother had a history of failing to appear, nor did the court apparently rely on that factor in deciding to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence … .

Furthermore, when the hearing continued one week later, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s requests, among other things, for a copy of her own court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, which, at that point, was in evidence, and for additional time to obtain a court transcript and to consult with her legal advisor. Perhaps most significantly, the court abused its discretion in excluding the mother from the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing, without the issuance of a warning and with knowledge of the mother’s diagnoses contained in the psychiatric evaluation … . Thus, on both dates of the hearing, the mother was left without an advocate … . Matter of Justina C. M. J. (Chantilly J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01805, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here mother was denied the right to be present in the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, was denied access to evidence and her request for an adjournment to consult with her legal advisor was denied. Cumulatively mother was denied her right to due process.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging that the corporate veil should be pierced should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds:

“To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine is asserted (1) exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) through such domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court in equity will intervene” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or LLC form include the failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds” … . “Additionally, the corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . “[A] fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . Goldberg v KOSL Bldg. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01790, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations in the complaint that defendant failed to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequately capitalized the corporate entities, commingled assets, and personally used LLC funds sufficiently supported plaintiff’s seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

 

,

THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the court, in rendering its verdict, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

… Supreme Court, in rendering its verdict, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant asserted at trial that he had been framed by the police. In delivering its verdict, the court ruled that “the credible testimony before me does not persuade this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant was in fact framed. And that being so . . . I find [the] defendant guilty.” The court’s finding “reverses the constitutionally required principles that the defense bears no burden and that it is the prosecution that must introduce evidence sufficient to persuade the fact finder, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt” … . People v Steward, 2025 NY Slip Op 01825, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the judge, in rendering the verdict, stated the defendant was found guilty because the defendant had not proven he was framed. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant required reversal and a new trial.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a reconstruction hearing on the defendant’s competence to stand trial, determined that the judge had not followed the procedures mandated by Criminal Procedure Law article 730:

“Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures courts of this State must follow in order to prevent the criminal trial of [an incompetent] defendant” … . The CPL expressly provides that “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous in their opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not an incapacitated person . . . the court must conduct a hearing to determine the issue of capacity” (CPL 730.30[4] …).. “That section is mandatory and not discretionary” … .

Here, once the Supreme Court made a threshold determination that the defendant’s conduct warranted an examination, it should have followed the procedures mandated by CPL article 730. The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial … . We find, however, that the requirements of CPL article 730 can be satisfied by a reconstruction hearing … .  People v Petty, 2025 NY Slip Op 01824, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: If the court orders a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person and the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous, the court must conduct a hearing on the issue of capacity.​

 

, ,

THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormick, determined the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was not entitled to unseal the record of a criminal action which had resulted in the acquittal of an off-duty police officer (the defendant) who shot and killed a man during a road rage incident:

At his criminal trial, the defendant presented a justification defense … [and] the jury acquitted him of all charges. As a result, the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution were sealed (see CPL 160.50). * * *

The CCRB charged the defendant with three counts of intentionally using force without police necessity, rising to the level of assault in the second degree, in violation of the NYPD’s Patrol Guide. * * *

… [T]he CCRB moved herein to unseal the record of this criminal action … in order to conduct its disciplinary trial … . * * *

Although the New York City Charter authorizes the CCRB to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for its investigations of police misconduct, and further requires the NYPD, inter alia, to provide records and other materials that are necessary for the CCRB’s investigations, the Charter specifically exempts from such disclosure “such records or materials that cannot be disclosed by law” (NY City Charter § 440[d][1]). As such, it cannot be said that the CCRB has been given a specific grant of power that would allow it to access the sealed records … . People v Isaacs, 2025 NY Slip Op 01818, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board cannon unseal the record of the criminal prosecution of a police officer which resulted in an acquittal.

 

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