You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Child Support Standards Act Formula Should Have Been Used

The Third Department determined Family Court erred in determining the parents’ respective contributions to child support when it used the catchall factor (factor 10, FamCtAct 413 (1)(f)(10)) to deviate from the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) formula because the father had custody of the older child all the time and the younger child every other week.  The Third Department determined the CSSA formula should have been applied:

Here, the Support Magistrate stated that he was relying on factor 10, the catch-all provision for “[a]ny other factors the court determines are relevant in each case” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [10]).  His stated reason for deviating from the presumptive amount was that the father has physical custody of the older child all of the time and of the younger child every other week, so the Support Magistrate adjusted the amount such that the father would not pay support when both children are with him.  This was merely another way of applying the proportional offset method, which would reduce a parent’s child support obligation based upon the amount of time that he or she actually spends with the child … .

The Court of Appeals has rejected this method as impractical, unworkable and contrary to the statute and legislative history … .  … While application of the CSSA formula may seem to produce unfair results where, as here, the parties equally share parenting time with a child, “[t]he difficult policy choices inherent in creating an offset formula for shared custody arrangements are better left to the Legislature” … .  The costs of providing suitable housing, clothing and food for the children during custodial periods do not qualify as extraordinary expenses so as to justify a deviation from the presumptive amount (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [9]…). While there may be circumstances in which a deviation is warranted in situations involving shared parenting time, the Support Magistrate’s articulated reason did not provide an adequate basis for such deviation here… . Matter of Ryan v Ryan. 514954, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

No Sound Basis for Family Court’s Determination Shared Custody Was Appropriate

The Third Department determined there was not a sound basis for Family Court’s determination that shared custody was appropriate

…[N]either party appears to have requested such relief, and the parties’ testimony at the fact-finding hearing was replete with mutual allegations of domestic violence and poor communication, as well as descriptions of vastly differing parenting styles. Moreover, although not a determinative factor, we note the absence in the court’s decision of any discussion concerning the wishes or preferences of the children, both of whom are in their teens, even though this factor should be “entitled to great weight” … .   Nor is there any discussion addressing the difficulties in a shared custody arrangement raised by the testimony concerning the son’s alleged preference to live in the mother’s home.  Additionally, while the court specifically found that there was some evidence that the father “does not fully understand or appreciate the daughter’s dietary needs and her medical issues,” it was not explained how this concern would be met by the alternating physical custody schedule set forth in the decision.  Given these and other concerns raised by the parties’ testimony, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to Family Court for a determination of primary physical custody of the children, accompanied by appropriate findings detailing the facts essential to such decision… . Matter of Glenna Y…, 514558, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Custody Petition by Maternal Grandmother Denied in Favor of Child’s Mother

In affirming the denial of custody to petitioner, the maternal grandmother, in favor of the child’s mother, the Third Department explained the relevant criteria:

“‘[A] biological parent has a claim of custody of his or her child, superior to that of all others, in the absence of surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, disruption of custody over an extended period of time or other extraordinary circumstances'” … .  Significantly, the nonparent seeking custody bears a heavy burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances … .

Persistent neglect will be found where the parent “has failed either to maintain substantial, repeated and continuous contact with a child or to plan for the child’s future” … . While relinquishing care and control of a child for a continuous period of 24 months will be considered an extraordinary circumstance (see Domestic Relations Law § 72 [2]…), petitioner concedes that no such period of separation occurred here … .  Although the child had visits with petitioner that lasted multiple weeks and, on at least one occasion, three months, the record does not reflect a prolonged period of separation or “a complete abdication of parental rights and responsibilities”… . Matter of Mildred PP v Samantha QQ, 514416, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Imputed Income, As Opposed to Actual Income, Used to Determine Mother’s Contribution to College Costs

The Third Department used imputed income to determine mother’s ability to contribute to the children’s college education:

In determining child support or related expenses, a court may impute income to a parent based on that party’s failure to seek more lucrative employment that is consistent with his or her education, skills and experience … .  Imputed income more accurately reflects a party’s earning capacity and, presumably, his or her ability to pay … .  Thus, imputed income may be attributed to a party as long as the court articulates the basis for imputation and record evidence supports the calculations … .

Here, Family Court accepted the mother’s income as $15,000, without imputing any income to her.  She testified that she earned approximately that amount at her part-time job as a tax preparer, but acknowledged that she has a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and could work full time, yet chooses to work reduced hours out of loyalty to her employer.  Because we are basing the college expenses on the parties’ ability to pay rather than their actual income, we will impute income to the mother based on her underemployment and ability to earn more ,,, .  Using the mother’s testimony that she earned approximately $15,000 working full time from January through April and two days per week for the remainder of the year, we can extrapolate a full-time salary for her at the same earning rate, resulting in an imputed income of $25,000.   Matter of Curley…, 514294, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

,

Parental Rights Termination Based Upon Mental Illness Reversed—Psychologist’s Report Included Inadmissible Hearsay

The Third Department reversed Family Court’s determination that mother’s parental rights should be terminated based upon her mental illness. The psychologist’s (Liotta’s) report, upon which Family Court based its ruling, should not have been admitted in evidence because it included inadmissible hearsay:

Pursuant to the professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule, an expert witness may rely on information that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay “if it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on the trial” … .  While some of the individuals with whom Liotta spoke testified during the hearing and were thus subject to cross-examination, several others did not.  Liotta was not asked and offered no opinion as to whether the information he gleaned from the interviews with individuals who did not testify was professionally accepted as reliable in performing mental health evaluations.  Respondent objected on hearsay grounds to Liotta’s testimony about these interviews and to the admission of his report – which contained detailed accounts of each interview – but the court overruled these objections.  Moreover, when respondent’s counsel sought to ask about the effect of the collateral source interviews on his opinions, the court precluded him from doing so.  As a result, no proper foundation was laid for the admission of Liotta’s testimony or his report… . Matter of Dakota F …, 513066, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal

The Third Department determined defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring that defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea be granted, and the postindictment delay, for which the People had no adequate excuse, required that the indictment be dismissed:

A Washington County grand jury handed up a four-count sealed indictment in October 2011 charging defendant with criminal sale and possession of controlled substances occurring in September and November 2010.  An arrest warrant was issued and provided to the State Police, who for well over six months were reportedly unable to locate defendant, who had relocated, until he was arrested during a traffic stop in Chautauqua County, where he had been residing.  He was arraigned on the indictment on June 14, 2012. * * *

…[D]efendant’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim was preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea and adequately alleges that it impacted the voluntariness of his plea and appeal waiver, so as to survive both … .  Thus, we address defendant’s speedy trial claim in the context of ascertaining whether he was deprived of meaningful representation, mindful that “[a] single error of failing to raise a meritorious speedy trial claim [may be] sufficiently egregious to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel” … . * * *

The People’s fleeting description of the efforts made to locate defendant fell far short of “all reasonable efforts to enforce judicially issued warrants” … required to satisfy the “due diligence” standard (CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]).  As such, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the statutory exclusion for this postindictment prereadiness delay … . Accordingly, all of this unready time would be chargeable to the People … . People v Devino, 105441, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Leading Questions and Elicitation of Hearsay in Grand Jury Proceedings Did Not Constitute Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Third Department reversed County Court and determined leading questions and elicitation of hearsay in the grand jury proceedings did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct:

“Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35 (5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury” … .  Contrary to County Court’s finding, the record as a whole does not reveal a “pervasive mishandling” of the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury.  To the extent that the prosecutor asked leading questions or elicited hearsay testimony from the various witnesses, we note that “not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective.  [Rather], the submission of some inadmissible evidence [typically] will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … .  Inasmuch as we are satisfied – based upon our review of the grand jury minutes – that there otherwise is legally sufficient (and admissible) evidence to sustain count 1 of the indictment, the isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions, do not warrant dismissal thereof … .  We similarly are persuaded that the prosecutor’s limited use of leading questions did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceeding… . People v Miller, 105721, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Failure to Set Forth Manner and Timing of Restitution Required Remittance

The Third Department determined the failure of County Court to set forth the manner and time of the payment of restitution required that the restitution order be vacated and the matter remitted to correct the omissions.  Peoplev Durham, 105027, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was invalid (based on the allocution) and vacated it in the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction:

As the record before us does not indicate that defendant ever actually entered a guilty plea pursuant to the plea agreement, we reverse.   While defense counsel indicated that it was defendant’s “intent[]” to do so, after County Court had recited the terms of the plea agreement, which defendant indicated he had “heard,” defendant never actually admitted his guilt in any manner and did not enter a valid plea.  The plea allocution simply does not reflect that defendant “understood the nature of the charge against him . . . and voluntarily entered into such plea” .. .  Further, while defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition,” County Court did not pose any questions, read the count of the indictment, or explain the crime (or its elements) to which he was entering a plea, so as to “establish the elements of the crime” … ; nor did defendant provide “unequivocal . . . responses” or “indicate[] that he was entering the plea because he was, in fact, guilty” … .

While defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (and we have no indication on this record that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction) so as to preserve his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution … , we find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse given, in part, that defense counsel may have been dissuaded from making such a motion by County Court’s advisement to defendant during the plea colloquy that if he violated the conditions of his release he “will not be permitted to withdraw [his] plea of guilty.”  Thus, we find that the plea was invalid. People v Beniquez, 104692, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

No Evidence Defendant Agreed to Adjournment—Indictment Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

In reversing County Court and dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, the Third Department noted there was no evidence the defense agreed to an adjournment during the period another criminal proceeding against the defendant was ongoing:

There is no support in the record for the People’s unsubstantiated claim that “it was agreed and understood” that defendant consented to an adjournment or waiver from March 27, 2009 until July 17, 2009.  “Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” … .  “While a defendant may waive rights under CPL 30.30, the record here contains no evidence of any waiver, written or oral,” and the Court of Appeals has made clear that “prosecutors would be well advised to obtain unambiguous written waivers in situations like these” … . As the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the disputed 112-day period was not chargeable to them …, the People did not establish that they were ready for trial within the statutory six-month period (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]).  Therefore, defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. People v Smith, 104091, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

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