You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING BASED UPON AN ACT WHICH WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT MOTION MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY SERVED, DEPRIVING FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the criminal contempt motion against father for bringing a recording device into court should have been dismissed because there was no proof father was personally served with the motion:

A finding of criminal contempt, as is pertinent here, must be supported by a showing of “[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]), and proof of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt … . “Such a contempt, committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, may be punished summarily; when not so committed, the party charged must be notified of the accusation, and have a reasonable time to make a defense” (Judiciary Law § 751 [1] …). To this end, a “criminal contempt proceeding requires personal service on the contemnor” … . “A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a respondent who is not properly served with process” and, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that the respondent may have actually received the documents, because notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court” … .

Family Court acknowledged in its written order that it was unable to summarily hold the father in contempt, as the only direct evidence of his possession of a prohibited recording device was discovered outside of the courtroom by court officers who were not immediately available to testify. As such, personal service of the motion charging the father with contempt was required. Nothing in the record reflects that such service was effectuated. We note that, to the extent that the court’s notice of motion indicates that it was mailed to the father to a Pennsylvania address, there is similarly no affidavit of service/mailing and no receipt of mailing in the record. Matter of Ruoyao P. (Zhechen P.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the procedural requirements for a motion charging criminal contempt for an act which was not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court. The motion must be personally served in accordance with the CPLR. Failure of proper service deprives the court of jurisdiction.

 

MOTHER’S ABANDONMENT OF HER PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS IS BEST ADDRESSED IN FATHER’S PARAMOUR’S ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS IN SURROGATE’S COURT; MOTHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS FATHER’S CUSTODY PETITION IN FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that the issue of mother’s abandonment of her parental obligations was best addressed the father’s paramour’s adoption proceedings in Surrogate’s Court. Father’s custody petition in Family Court should have been dismissed:

The operative point now is that the paramour has initiated adoption proceedings in Surrogate’s Court on the basis of the mother’s abandonment of the children for a period of six months (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]). As Family Court observed, “the Surrogate would have to determine identical issues and allegations as to whether the mother abandoned the children.” In doing so, the Surrogate will be governed by the evidentiary criteria for an abandonment outlined in Domestic Relations Law § 111 (6) (a-d). By comparison, these same statutory criteria do not expressly apply to a custody modification proceeding. It bears further emphasis that “[a]bandonment, as it pertains to adoption, relates to such conduct on the part of a parent as evinces a purposeful ridding of parental obligations and the foregoing of parental rights — a withholding of interest, presence, affection, care and support” … .

Given that the focus of this entire matter is on the issue of adoption, we conclude that the appropriate course is for the Surrogate to determine the question of abandonment. To have this question addressed on parallel tracks in both Family Court and Surrogate’s Court would be both unnecessary and prejudicial to the interests of the parties, particularly given that the paramour is not a party to the Family Court proceeding. As such, the mother’s motion to dismiss the petition should have been granted. Matter of Jason TT. v Linsey UU., 2025 NY Slip Op 04067, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the parallel proceedings in Family Court and Surrogate’s Court where mother’s abandonment of her parental obligations is the central issue. Here the court determined the issue was best handled in father’s paramour’s adoption proceedings in Surrogate’s Court, as opposed to father’s modification of custody proceedings in Family Court.

 

,

THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, granting defendant’s suppression motion and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, determined the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which prohibits the search of a vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana, applied to defendant’s case, even though the statute had not been enacted at the time of the search. The statute had been enacted at the time of the suppression hearing:

On this appeal, we are tasked with answering a question left open by the Court of Appeals in People v Pastrana (41 NY3d 23, 29 [2023] …) — namely, whether Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a), enacted as part of the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (hereinafter MRTA), applies to a post-enactment suppression hearing concerning a pre-enactment search. * * *

… Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) — enacted as part of the MRTA — provides that “in any criminal proceeding including proceedings pursuant to [CPL] 710.20 . . . , no finding or determination of reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed shall be based solely on evidence of . . . the odor of cannabis” … . CPL 710.20 pertains to motions to suppress evidence. By this comprehensive and present tense language, Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) expressly limits a suppression court’s authority to base a probable cause finding solely upon evidence of the odor of marihuana without regard to when the vehicle search occurred. * * *

… [T]his provision is directed at the present evidentiary findings of a court, “and no real question of retroactive effect on past conduct or events is presented” … . Since Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) was in effect at the time of the suppression hearing and the suppression court’s probable cause finding was based solely upon the fact that the trooper smelled the odor of marihuana emanating from the vehicle, that determination was erroneous as a matter of law … . People v Martin, 2025 NY Slip Op 03842, Third Dept 6-26-25

Practice Point: Here the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was deemed to apply to the evidence which can be considered at a probable-cause-to-search-a-vehicle hearing. Therefore there was no need to apply the statute retroactively where the search was pre-enactment but the suppression hearing was post-enactment.

 

AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW REQUIRES UTILITY COMPANIES TO COMPENSATE CUSTOMERS FOR STORM-OUTAGE-RELATED LOSSES WHERE THE OUTAGE IS FOR 72 HOURS OR MORE AND PROHIBITS UTILITIES FROM RECOVERING THOSE COSTS FROM RATEPAYERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined that an amendment to the Public Service Law requires utilities to compensate customers for storm-outage-related losses when the outage lasts for 72 hours or more, and prohibits utilities from recovering those costs from ratepayers. The Third Department disagreed with Supreme Court and found this declaratory judgment action was ripe for judicial review, but affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition. The opinion has a comprehensive discussion of statutory interpretation which is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Matter of Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v State of N.Y. Pub. Serv. Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 03849, Third Dept 6-25-25

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED; DEFENDANT THEN CONSENTED TO A RESENTENCE WHICH WAS LONGER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY PROMISED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, THE RESENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED; THE SENTENCING JUDGE CAN FASHION A SENTENCE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROMISE BY REDUCING THE OFFENSE CHARGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the resentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant was not given the opportunity withdraw her plea when she was resentenced:

Defendant … contends that because she entered a guilty plea with a sentencing promise — 10 years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision — that was unauthorized, her plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and she should have been afforded an opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea prior to resentencing. Initially, we note that “the illegality of the promised sentence does not, in itself, render a defendant’s guilty plea unknowing and involuntary” … and defendant did not preserve her voluntariness claim … . Regarding resentencing, where, as here, a plea bargain provides for a sentence that is not legal and an illegal sentence is imposed, “the trial court ha[s the] inherent power to correct [the] illegal sentence” … . However, “when a defendant’s guilty plea has been induced by a sentencing promise that the court later determines is inappropriate or illegal, that court must afford the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea or honor the plea-inducing promise” … . County Court could have either afforded defendant an opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea which, if she declined, would permit imposition of a lawful sentence, or “reduce[d] the sentence or the crime charged so that the sentence upon which the plea bargain was based can legally be imposed,” thereby honoring defendant’s sentencing expectations that induced her guilty plea … . However, at resentencing, the court did not “impose another lawful sentence that comport[ed] with . . . defendant’s legitimate [sentencing] expectations” … but, instead, merely procured defendant’s consent to a longer resentence which was not comparable to that contemplated by the plea agreement, without expressly affording her an opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea prior to that consent. This was error and, accordingly, the resentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court to afford defendant an opportunity to move to withdraw her guilty plea or fashion a remedy to honor the sentencing promise … . People v Harrigan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03669, Third Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here defendant consented to a longer sentence than that which was promised without being afforded the opportunity to withdraw her plea. The resentence was therefore vacated. The Third Department noted that the judge has the power to fashion a sentence which is in accordance with the original promise by reducing the charged crime.

 

, , , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garry, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the town in this dispute over the approval of the construction of apartments. Plaintiffs alleged that the chairperson of the planning board, who owned adjacent property, was biased against the proposed construction and his bias infected the planning board’s recommendation:

As Supreme Court correctly noted, the enactment that plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this action was a product of the Town Board, not the Planning Board … . We further note that it is expressly within the power of the Planning Board to submit advisory opinions to the Town Board for proposed amendment to the zoning law … . For these reasons, it is possible that the connection of the alleged bias to the action of the Town Board may ultimately be insufficiently direct. Supreme Court’s decision apparently rejected plaintiffs’ allegations on this ground. Nonetheless, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the extent to which the long-term Chairperson’s alleged bias infected the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board that multifamily dwelling development be reconsidered, the Town’s subsequent investigation thereof, and the Town Board’s ultimate adoption of the challenged local law limiting same is not amenable to resolution as a matter of law at this procedural stage … . Thus, any declaration regarding the validity of Local Law No. 2022-08 was premature, and Supreme Court’s order must be reversed in full so that the action may proceed through the ordinary course. PF Dev. Group, LLC v Town of Brunswick, 2025 NY Slip Op 03671, Third Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here allegations that the passage of a local law was influenced by bias on the part of the chairperson of the planning board raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment finding the local law valid.​

 

, ,

WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ON THE RECORD, A FAMILY COURT JUDGE CANNOT ORDER RESTITUTION IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING FOR ITEMS NOT RECITED IN THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined there was nothing in he record demonstrating respondent (juvenile) accepted an admission in exchange for restitution on all charges. The order of restitution was reversed:

Family Court may order a person who has been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent to make “restitution in an amount representing a fair and reasonable cost to replace the property [or] repair the damage caused by” him or her (Family Ct Act § 353.6 [1] [a]). In doing so, Family Court has “broad discretion” in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding … , but, as a court of limited jurisdiction, remains constrained to exercise the powers granted to it by statute … . Unlike the Penal Law, which permits restitution for damage to property that was not alleged in the charging document but still “part of the same criminal transaction” (Penal Law § 60.27 [4] [a]), there is “no parallel provision in Family Court Act § 353.6,” thus restitution is generally limited to those items recited in the petition … . To this further point, “a juvenile may be required to pay restitution for a charge to which he or she did not admit only where there is a recorded agreement to accept an admission in exchange for restitution” … . Matter of Juan Z. (Juan Z.), 2025 NY Slip Op 03674, Third Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Unlike under the Penal Law, the ability of a Family Court judge under the Family Court Act to order restitution in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is limited to the items recited in the petition and/or in an agreement on the record.

 

THE EMPLOYER’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER WAS ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 15(3)(W), TO TAKE CREDIT TOWARD AWARDS OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly held that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was entitled, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (3)(w), to take credit toward awards of temporary disability. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here.:

On December 19, 2017, claimant was involved in a work-related accident, and his subsequent claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established for injuries to his back, thoracic spine and both shoulders. Awards were made at various rates for periods of temporary disability and lost time beginning on December 20, 2017. In April 2021, claimant’s treating pain management specialist opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (hereinafter MMI) with respect to his lumbar spine, and, in November 2021, the carrier’s consultant in physical medicine and rehabilitation, who conducted an independent medical examination of claimant, found that MMI in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation had been established. In a June 2022 decision, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) directed the parties to produce medical evidence of permanency. Following subsequent examinations for permanency, as well as deposition testimony from several of the physicians who examined claimant for permanency and testimony from claimant, the WCLJ, in a November 2022 decision, classified claimant as having a permanent partial disability with a loss of wage-earning capacity of 65%, entitling him to 375 weeks of compensation at the specified rate. The WCLJ also found that, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was entitled to a credit against the number of statutory cap weeks based upon its payment of 78.8 weeks of awards to claimant for periods of temporary partial disability after June 16, 2020 — the 130th week following the accident of record. Matter of Quoma v Bob’s Discount Furniture, 2025 NY Slip Op 03610, Third Dept 6-12-25

 

THE SANCTION THAT PETITIONER BE CONFINED TO A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU), NOW KNOWN AS SEGRETATED CONFINEMENT, FOR 730 DAYS VIOLATED THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT); THE CORRECTION LAW LIMITS SUCH CONFINEMENT TO 15 CONSECUTIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) prohibited petitioner’s confinement in a special housing unit (SHU), now known as segregated confinement, for 730 days. The maximum permitted by the Correction Law is 15 consecutive days:

… [P]ursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (i), DOCCS [NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] “may place a person in segregated confinement for up to three consecutive days and no longer than six days in any [30-]day period if, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing, it determines that the person violated [DOCCS] rules which permit a penalty of segregated confinement. [DOCCS] may not place a person in segregated confinement for longer than three consecutive days or six days total in a [30-]day period unless the provisions of subparagraph (ii) . . . are met.” … Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) provides that DOCCS “may place a person in segregated confinement beyond the limits of subparagraph (i) . . . or in [an RRU] only if, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing, it determines by written decision that the person committed one of [certain statutorily provided] acts and if the [C]ommissioner or his or her designee determines in writing based on specific objective criteria the acts were so heinous or destructive that placement of the individual in general population housing creates a significant risk of imminent serious physical injury to staff or other incarcerated persons, and creates an unreasonable risk to the security of the facility.” Although Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) does not contain a specific temporal limitation, this can be found in Correction Law § 137 (6) (i) (i), which provides, with certain exceptions, that “[n]o person may be placed in segregated confinement for longer than necessary and no more than [15] consecutive days. Nor shall any person be placed in segregated confinement for more than [20] total days within any [60-]day period.” Given these limitations, we find that not only the penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer, but also the reduced penalty of 730 days in SHU, violates the HALT Act. Matter of Peterkin v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 03617, Third Dept 6-12-25

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WAS FACING NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the judge’s providing erroneous information about the maximum sentence defendant was facing did not need to be preserved for appeal and rendered the guilty plea involuntary:

… County Court advised [defendant] that, if he elected to proceed to trial and was convicted of all offenses as a second felony drug offender, he faced a sentencing exposure of 36 years in prison rather than the correct, capped term of 30 years … . … [A]s the Court of Appeals recently made clear, where “the court provides the defendant with erroneous information concerning their maximum sentencing exposure that is contrary to the undisputed text of the Penal Law, fails to correct its error on the record, and the defendant has no apparent reason to question the accuracy of that information, the defendant need not preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of the guilty plea on that ground” … . * * *

Although defendant here was no stranger to the criminal justice system and received a reasonable sentencing commitment from County Court, the plea colloquy itself reflects that defendant believed that he had been overcharged and questioned whether he would be convicted if he went to trial. Defendant made clear during the plea colloquy, in fact, that he was only pleading guilty to the indictment because he would rather[*3]”get the high/low of 16/14″ than go to trial and risk “more time in state prison.” Even then, defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty until the moment he entered his formal plea, asking County Court immediately before he did so to repeat the potential sentencing exposure he faced if he did not “want to go through all of this and [went] to trial.” … .People v Shaw, 2025 NY Slip Op 03358, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point” Here the judge told defendant he was facing 36 years in prison when the actual maximum was 30. That error need not be preserved for appeal and, based on defendant’s remarks and questions at sentencing, was deemed to have rendered defendant’s guilty plea involuntary.

 

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