From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
What Must the People Prove to Justify an Arrest Based Upon the “Fellow Officer” Rule Where the Arresting Officer Is Told There Is Probable Cause?
People v Palacios, 2026 NY Slip Op 02360, CtApp 4-16-26
Is a Lawsuit in State Court Against a Church Stemming from a Property Dispute Prohibited by the First Amendment?
In a Slip and Fall, Is a Smooth, Shiny, Slippery, Waxed Floor a Dangerous Condition?
Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept
The Police Did Not Serve Mother with a Stay Away Order and Did Not Pick Up the Child on Father’s Behalf as Father Requested; Mother Murdered the Child; Is the Village Liable?
Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26
- Searchable, Organized Database of Over 17,000 Decision-Summaries
- “Latest Posts” Updated Weekly
- Weekly Reversal Reports
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Reports
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Reports
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Reports
- Civil Procedure Update CLE
PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY A PATIENT TO THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING AND A STATEMENT OF CHARGES INDICATING HIS EMT LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED; PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A DECLARATION HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS; SUPREME COURT AGREED BUT THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mcshan, rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, or, alternatively pursuant to Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution. Plaintiff is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) who responded to a call that a man (the patient) had fallen and could not get up. According to a witness, plaintiff thought the patient was faking, ridiculed him and offered only minimal assistance. The patient submitted a complaint to the defendant (the Department of Health). The defendant served plaintiff with a notice of hearing and statement of charges indicating plaintiff may be subject fines and revocation of the EMT license. Plaintiff then sued defendant seeking a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial:
The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value of the controversy exceeds $20 (see US Const, 7th Amend). Longstanding precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the Seventh Amendment “applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same” … . * * *
The NY Constitution provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art I, § 2). * * *
… [P]laintiff asserts that defendant, in essence, seeks to punish him for tortious conduct through the imposition of a civil penalty, which traditionally entailed a jury trial … . What plaintiff fails to directly confront, however, is that the nature of this proceeding is predicated on a violation of the statutory scheme that regulates plaintiff’s professional license and that the remedies sought are tethered thereto. … Specifically, Public Health Law article 30 places the responsibility on defendant to regulate the provision of emergency medical services in the state (see Public Health Law §§ 3000-3034) and, in furtherance of that responsibility, defendant has promulgated regulations governing the training, examination and licensing of EMTs … .Ball v New York State Dept. of Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 02494, Third Dept 4-23-26
Practice Point: Plaintiff, an EMT, after a complaint from a patient, was facing a Department of Health hearing at which his EMT license could be revoked. Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution.
MOTHER, WHO NOW RESIDES IN NEW YORK, MOVED TO MODIFY A TEXAS CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE TEXAS DID NOT CEDE JURISDICTION AND FATHER RESIDES IN TEXAS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICITION; ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT COULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND COMMUNICATED WITH THE TEXAS COURT, IT DID NOT (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the judge did not have jurisdiction to grant mother’s petition to modify custody. The original custody order was issued in Texas, where father resides. Mother and child, with the permission of the Texas court, now reside in New York:
This case presents the difficult situation faced by a judge addressing a petition by a party who seeks to modify a custody order issued by a court of another state. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA] (Domestic Relations Law Art. 5-A, §§ 75 — 78-a), even where New York has become the child’s “[h]ome state” (Domestic Relations Law §75-a[7]), a New York judge does not have jurisdiction to modify a custody order issued by a foreign state unless either: 1) the foreign state cedes jurisdiction; or 2) neither the parents nor the child continue to reside in the foreign state (Domestic Relations Law § 76-b). Since neither of these situations was present in this case, Family Court had no jurisdiction to modify the custody order before it. Alternatively, if the New York judge determines that it is necessary to protect a child, sibling or parent, the court may take temporary emergency jurisdiction, communicate with the foreign court, and issue a time-limited order as necessary to protect the child and t0 permit the party seeking a modification to request it in the foreign court (Domestic Relations Law § 76-c). Here, since Family Court failed to communicate with the foreign court and failed to specify a time-limited duration for its order, it also did not appropriately take emergency jurisdiction. * * *
… [H]ad Family Court recognized that Texas had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its custody order that the mother sought to modify, it could have contacted the Texas court in order to determine whether the Texas court would relinquish jurisdiction, thus permitting Family Court to exercise jurisdiction to modify the Texas custody order pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-b. If the Texas court did not agree to relinquish jurisdiction, Family Court could then determine whether it should take emergency jurisdiction and issue a time-limited order pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-c. Matter of Natalie P. v Steven L.R., 2026 NY Slip Op 02458, First Dept 4-23-26
Practice Point: A New York court does not have jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state custody order unless the foreign state cedes jurisdiction or no party continues to reside in the foreign state.
THE NEGOTIATED PLEA TO A MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION WAS VACATED AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE FELONY CHARGES WAS REVERSED; THE INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE, HERE THE OPERABILITY OF THE FIREARM; THE FELONY CHARGES WERE REINSTATED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the Appellate Term, over a two-judge dissent, determined the misdemeanor information to which defendant pled guilty was jurisdictionally defective in that it did not allege every element of the offense, here the operability of the firearm:
At arraignment, the People stated that while there had not yet been grand jury action, the parties had agreed to a pre-indictment plea bargain whereby the defendant would plead guilty to the misdemeanor count in satisfaction of all charges in exchange for a sentence of two years’ probation. With the People’s consent, Criminal Court purported to dismiss the two felony counts by crossing them off the felony complaint. The court did not adhere to the procedure set forth in CPL 180.50 for reducing felony charges, the People did not file a superseding accusatory instrument, and the defendant did not waive prosecution by information. He nonetheless pleaded guilty to the remaining misdemeanor count, and the court later imposed the bargained-for sentence. The defendant subsequently appealed the judgment of conviction, arguing that the felony complaint was jurisdictionally defective as to the count to which he pleaded due to the absence of any allegation that the firearm was operable. * * *
We agree with the defendant that the instrument to which he pleaded guilty did not meet the prima facie case requirement because it lacked any allegations of operability. As such, it was jurisdictionally defective and could not serve as the basis for his plea. Consequently, the case should be “restored to its pre-pleading status” (CPL 470.55 [2] …). The record reflects that the felony counts were dismissed when the parties informed the court of their agreed-upon disposition, and thus the purported dismissal is best understood as an integral component of the defendant’s plea. The pre-pleading posture therefore restores the felony complaint … . The defendant fails to identify a sufficient basis for dismissal of the original, pre-pleading felony complaint, and we therefore remit for further proceedings. People v Burgess, 2026 NY Slip Op 02438, CtApp 4-23-26
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the consequences of failing to follow the proper procedure for reducing felony charges as part of a negotiated plea to an information. Here the information was deemed jurisdictionally defective on appeal, the plea was vacated, and the felony charges were reinstated.
A HEARING REGARDING A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) CANNOT BE WAIVED AS A CONDITION OF A PLEA AGREEMENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a concurring opinion and a three-judge dissent, determined the hearing regarding a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) cannot be waived as part of a plea agreement:
The issue on appeal is whether, as a condition of a negotiated plea agreement, a defendant may waive a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing to determine their eligibility for an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The Legislature designed the DVSJA’s alternative sentencing framework to remedy a systemic injustice of the criminal legal system. Specifically, the Legislature recognized that the standard sentencing scheme fails to adequately consider how domestic violence impacts a survivor defendant’s criminal conduct, and their potential for rehabilitation, resulting in harsh and unfair sentences for many survivors. The DVSJA, in Penal Law § 60.12, provides a survivor defendant with the opportunity to request a hearing to establish the impacts of domestic violence in their case and their eligibility for a lesser sentence that accords with the legislative purpose of fair and compassionate treatment of survivors.
Here, defendant N.H. requested a reduced sentence under the DVSJA sentencing framework or, in the alternative, a section 60.12 hearing to demonstrate her eligibility for such a sentence. The prosecution subsequently offered, and N.H. accepted, a plea bargain contingent on N.H.’s waiver of a section 60.12 hearing. We hold that section 60.12 hearings are not waivable as a condition of a plea agreement. People v N.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 02437, CtApp 4-23-26
Practice Point: A defendant eligible for a reduced sentence hearing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act cannot waive the hearing as a condition for a plea agreement.
TO THE EXTENT VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SECTION 370 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE RENTAL-CAR COMPANIES TO PROVIDE PRIMARY LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE TO RENTER-DRIVERS, SECTION 370 IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL “GRAVES AMENDMENT” (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the federal “Graves Amendment (49 USC 30106),” which relieves rental-car companies of vicarious liability for the negligence of the renter-drivers, preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 to the extent that section 370 has been interpreted to require rental companies to provide primary liability insurance coverage to renters. But section 370’s requirement that rental-car companies carry a specified minimum amount of insurance is not preempted by the Graves Amendment:
The Appellate Division [held] that “the Graves Amendment does not supersede Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 insofar as it is a state law that requires rental car companies to carry a specified minimum amount of insurance for each of their vehicles” but “is superseded to the extent it requires a rental car company to ‘provide primary insurance to their renters up to the minimum liability limits provided by the statute’ ” … . The Court reasoned that “[t]o hold otherwise would rescue every vicarious liability claim up to statutory minimum insurance amounts and render the Graves Amendment’s preemption clause a nullity” … . The Court further held that section 370 does not reverse preempt the Graves Amendment under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, because the Graves Amendment “does not entirely ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ ” section 370 … . * * *
We note that the Graves Amendment does not free car rental companies from all liability arising from the use of a rented vehicle. On the contrary, it expressly permits States to impose liability on rental companies for damages arising from their own negligence or criminal wrongdoing (see 49 USC § 30106 [a] [2]). Nor does the Graves Amendment restrict New York’s ability to require rental companies to obtain insurance, no matter what kind, “for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” (id. § 30106 [b] [1]). Our decision today does not affect section 370’s requirement that car rental companies obtain insurance coverage for such other liability or for the privilege of registering vehicles in New York. Rather, we narrowly hold that the Graves Amendment preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 to the extent that it requires car rental companies to provide primary liability insurance to their renters up to the statute’s minimum liability amounts. Second Child v Edge Auto, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02436, CtApp 4-23-26
Practice Point: The interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 which required rental-car companies to provide primary liability insurance to renter-drivers has been preempted by the federal “Graves Amendment.”
THE WILL BEQUEATHED THE REAL PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF ALONE; THE DEFENDANT ADMINSTRATOR DREW UP A DEED WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AS JOINT TENANTS; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE DEED IS VOID AB INITIO OR VOIDABLE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEED WAS VOIDABLE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined that the deed drawn up by defendant, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, which was inconsistent with a specific bequest in the will, was voidable, not void ab initio. The will bequeathed the real property to plaintiff alone. The defendant administrator drew up a deed which transferred the property to plaintiff and defendant as joint tenants. Supreme Court determined deed was void ab initio. The Second Department reversed and determined the deed was voidable. The opinion is complex and cannot be fairly summarized here:
The primary question presented in this appeal is whether a transfer of property by an administrator c.t.a. in a manner that is inconsistent with a specific bequest in a will is voidable or void ab initio. In our view, an administrator c.t.a. who receives letters of administration c.t.a. from the Surrogate’s Court is cloaked with apparent authority to make a transfer of property from the estate, even if that transfer is contrary to the terms of the decedent’s will. As such, the transfer is voidable, not void ab initio.
The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: On April 13, 1998, Floribel Nelson (hereinafter the decedent) died. Prior to her death, the decedent owned real property located in Brooklyn (hereinafter the subject property). In her will, the decedent bequeathed her entire estate, including the subject property, to the plaintiff, who was the decedent’s grandniece, and two other family members who had apparently predeceased the decedent. Because the will further provided that, “if any [of the named heirs] do not survive [the decedent], then his or her share shall be divided equally among the survivors, and if there is only one survivor, said survivor shall take the whole estate,” the plaintiff was the sole surviving beneficiary of the decedent’s estate at the time of the decedent’s death. Rhiney v Rhiney, 2026 NY Slip Op 02428, Second Dept 4-22-26
Practice Point: Here a deed drawn up by the administrator of the estate conveyed decedent’s real property to the administrator and the plaintiff as joint tenants. However, the will bequeathed the property to plaintiff alone. The court was asked to determine if the deed was void ab initio or voidable. The deed was deemed voidable.
HERE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S VOICE WAS MUCH LESS DEFINITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL THAN THE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, RAISING A QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, remitting the matter for a reopened suppression hearing, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the hearing based upon discrepancies between the testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial. The trial testimony was less definitive and unequivocal, raising a question about whether there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest:
The defendant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing on the basis that an individual had testified, during the trial, that he had told the police that the voice of the alleged kidnapper, who the individual had heard speaking on the telephone, was “possibly” that of the defendant, and the individual also admitted to testifying before the grand jury that he identified the voice after being shown a photograph of the defendant. Whereas, the police testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing regarding the same individual’s identification of the defendant’s voice, which formed the basis for the defendant’s arrest, was more definitive and unequivocal, and did not involve the viewing of a photograph. We agree.
Courts have the discretion to reopen a suppression hearing based upon new facts, which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the suppression motion, pertinent to the suppression issue … . These new facts need not establish a constitutional violation on their face, but must be facts that would either materially affect, or have affected, the earlier determination … . Here, where the reliability of a witness’s identification of the defendant’s voice as that of one of the perpetrators of the crime, which primarily formed the basis for the defendant’s arrest, was called into question in light of that witness’s trial testimony, an issue of fact was raised regarding whether there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest … . Although motions to reopen suppression hearings are generally denied where the new facts proffered go only to the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s arrest, here, the defendant could not be presumed to know the basis of the communications or conduct between police, leading to his arrest … . The failure of trial counsel to move to reopen the suppression hearing on this ground was therefore both objectively unreasonable as well as prejudicial to the defendant … . Contrary to the People’s contention, this is not a case in which trial counsel’s error can be explained as part of any strategic design … . People v Clark, 2026 NY Slip Op 02414, Second Dept 4-22-26
Practice Point: Here trial testimony about the identification of defendant’s voice was not as definitive or unequivocal as the testimony at the suppression hearing raising a question whether there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the hearing. The matter was remitted for a reopened hearing.
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE JUDGE TO DELEGATE TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ASC) THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S THERAPEUTIC SUPERVISED PARENTAL ACCESS; ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined it was error for the judge to delegate to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) the authority to determine mother’s therapeutic supervised parental access. The Second Department made it clear that its decision to the contrary in Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.), 121 AD 2d 1006, should no longer be followed:
Eleven years ago, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, this Court, in Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.) (121 AD3d 1006, 1007), held that a determination of the Family Court to limit the father to supervised parental access with the subject children at the discretion of the petitioning agency had a sound and substantial basis in the record. This holding seemingly indicated that a court may delegate its authority to set parental access to an agency in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. However, since that appeal was decided, this Court has made clear, in numerous other appeals, that a court may not delegate its authority in such a way as to permit a determination of parental access to be made by either a therapist, a parent, or by the subject children … . Considering the foregoing, and that “[t]he determination of visitation is entrusted to the court based upon the best interests of the children” … , to the extent that Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.), stands for the proposition that a court in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may delegate its authority to determine issues of parental access to an agency, that case should no longer be followed. Thus, here, the Family Court erred by delegating to ACS the authority to determine the mother’s therapeutic supervised parental access with the child … . Matter of Jayceon H. (Aniya M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02405, Second Dept 4-22-26
Practice Point: A court cannot delegate its authority to determine issues of parental access to an agency.
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendant in this foreclosure action had standing to argue the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was jurisdictionally defective, despite defendant’s transfer of the subject real property during the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff had not waived a deficiency judgment and the time for seeking one had not elapsed. Therefore defendant still had an interest in defending the action, i.e., defendant had standing to contest the notice. The First Department rejected defendant’s notice argument:
It is well settled that a defendant lacks standing to defend the action where it transfers the mortgaged property to a third party during the foreclosure action and the plaintiff waives its right to a deficiency judgment * * *.
… [I]n this case, plaintiff chose not to waive a deficiency judgment and its time to move for a deficiency judgment has not yet expired. Because [defendant] is subject to a potential deficiency judgment and is a debtor on the underlying mortgage, he has an interest in defending the action notwithstanding that he transferred the mortgaged property … and as a result, no longer has the right to redeem the property. Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Vassi, 2026 NY Slip Op 02375, First Dept 4-21-26
Practice Point: If the time for seeking a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure has not passed, a defendant who transferred the subject property to a third party during the foreclosure proceedings still has standing, i.e., defendant has an interest in defending against a deficiency judgment. However, if the plaintiff had waived a deficiency judgment defendant would have lost standing.
DEFENDANT’S 30.30 (“SPEEDY TRIAL”) MOTION WAS MADE ON THE DAY TRIAL WAS TO BEGIN; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MOTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE STATUTORILY ENTITLED TO “REASONABLE NOTICE” WAS REJECTED; THE TRIAL JUDGE IS FREE TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL, OR PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AND HEAR THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SUBSEQUENTLY (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s 30.30 (“speedy trial”) motion was timely made right before trial. The argument that bringing the motion right before trial violated the statutory provision that the motion be made upon “reasonable notice” to the People was rejected. Once the motion is made, the trial court can opt to proceed with the trial and determine the motion subsequently:
… [A] defendant seeking a dismissal based on a speedy trial violation may wish to accumulate as many chargeable days as possible. The facts here reinforce the wisdom of this approach. Defendant made his motion on the date trial was set to begin, eleven months after his arraignment, and alleged 326 days chargeable to the People. That motion contained 9 pages of detailed calculations of days and arguments about why each period should be charged to the People, including the days immediately leading up to the July 23 court date. The People for their part now claim that only 54 of those days were chargeable to them. In other words, every day counts—and many may be contested—in the speedy trial context, and the statute affords a defendant flexibility to decide when best in the time leading up to the start of trial to make a CPL 30.30 (1) (b) motion.
… [T]he People are entitled to a fair opportunity to prepare a response. * * * A court in receipt of such motion has discretion whether to proceed with trial and when to resolve the motion. While proceeding in this way may lead to inefficiencies … , such a result may in certain cases be necessary. The trial court is in the best position to determine when proceeding to trial is warranted to avoid inconvenience to witnesses and unnecessary delay. People v Roper, 2026 NY Slip Op 02365, CtApp 4-21-26
Practice Point: Here a 30.30 (speedy trial) motion was timely despite being made on the day of the trial. The argument that the motion was untimely because the “reasonable notice” provision in the statute was violated was rejected. The court can proceed with the trial and hear the motion later.
THE FOURTH TRIAL, AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND WEAPON POSSESSION, TOOK PLACE THREE YEARS AFTER THE LAST OF THREE MISTRIALS; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CHARGES DISMISSED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, dismissing defendant’s murder and weapon possession charges, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over the three-judge dissent, determined that the three-year delay between the third mistrial and the fourth trial violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial:
… [W]e conclude that the three-year delay to retry defendant a fourth time was unjustified and violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. … “[W]hile the greater the delay, the more likely the harm to the defendant, there is no specific length of time that automatically results in a due process violation … . Here, the delay was lengthy—more than three years and one month between the third and fourth trials, and 36 months between the third trial and when the prosecution declared readiness for the fourth trial. … The delay is even more stark when compared to the dramatically shorter time between the prior trials: six months between the first and second trials and eleven months between the second and third trials.
The “reason for the delay” factor is critical. Thus, in cases involving post-indictment delays, the prosecution’s “good faith will not insulate their decision to delay trial from judicial review on constitutional speedy trial grounds” … . “[O]nce having instituted the prosecution . . ., [the prosecution has] the obligation of advancing it unless there is a reasonable ground for delay” … . By the time of the delay preceding the fourth trial, defendant had already been indicted and tried three times. That indictment remained pending throughout the three-year delay. Accordingly, the prosecution had the obligation of advancing its case in the absence of a reasonable justification … .
A lengthy delay “demands close scrutiny of the other factors, especially the question of why the delay occurred” … . Here, the prosecution’s justifications for the delay lack record support and in any case are not persuasive. The prosecution’s claim that the delay was attributable to its consideration of defense counsel’s request for dismissal after three mistrials cannot, without more, account for the three-year delay. The prosecution did not provide any particular reasons for why its deliberations of whether to retry defendant took so long given its failure to obtain a conviction three times in a row on the murder and weapon possession charges. Nor did the prosecution assert that an internal “changing of the guard” impacted its ability to render a decision on whether to retry the case. People v Woods, 2026 NY Slip Op 02364, CtApp 4-22-26
Practice Point: Here defendant was convicted of murder and weapon possession at his fourth trial, There was a three-year delay between the last mistrial and the fourth trial. The delay violated defendant’s speedy trial rights. The charges were dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXCUSE FOR LATE FILING WAS INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY DEFENDANTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE 11-MONTH DELAY IN FILING (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to deem a notice of claim timely served should not have been granted. The excuse for failing to timely file was not sufficient, plaintiff failed show the city defendants had timely knowledge of the claim, and plaintiff did not demonstrate the city defendants were not prejudiced the the 11-month delay in filing the notice:
Plaintiff’s averment that he was unaware of the time limits necessary to file a notice of claim and initially did not retain counsel after being released from custody because he was focusing on the criminal charges against him are not acceptable excuses for failing to file a timely notice of claim … .
Furthermore, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within 90 days of the accrual of the claims or within a reasonable time thereafter … . Plaintiff’s allegations that NYPD officers participated in his false arrest and detention and that they assaulted and battered him do not satisfy plaintiff’s burden of establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts because his allegations do not constitute facts or evidence … . Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants must have records regarding his arrest, detention, and prosecution is also unavailing, as “the alleged existence of records does not suffice to establish actual knowledge” … .
Since plaintiff failed to make an initial showing that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay of about 11 months in filing the notice of claim, the burden never shifted to defendants to make a particularized showing of prejudice to their ability to defend on the merits … . Waddell v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02357, First Dept 4-16-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors a court will consider when determining whether a late notice of claim should be allowed.
A POLICE OFFICER INTERVIEWED AN EYEWITNESS AND CREATED A “PROBABLE CAUSE I-CARD” FOR THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE ARRESTING OFFICER SAW AND RELIED ON THE I-CARD, WHICH THE “FELLOW OFFICER” RULE REQUIRES FOR A LAWFUL ARREST; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the motion to suppress defendant’s statement should have been granted because the People failed to prove the arrest was based upon the “fellow officer” rule, An officer who interviewed a witness created a probable-cause I-card which was posted to inform other police officers of the probable cause for defendant’s arrest. But the People did not prove the arresting officer relied on the I-card as the basis of the arrest:
Whether the People presented sufficient evidence of a communication under the fellow officer rule is a fact-specific question that requires examination of the record before the suppression court. Here, the People presented no direct evidence that prior to arresting the defendant, the arresting officers were aware of the I-card and relied upon it in effectuating the defendant’s arrest. The arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing, nor did the detective testify about the circumstances of the arrest. * * *
We conclude that the People failed to provide evidence sufficient to show a communication between the officers based on the I-card, and therefore failed to meet their burden at the suppression hearing to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Absent the requisite showing of probable cause, the defendant’s statement must be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. People v Palacios, 2026 NY Slip Op 02360, CtApp 4-16-26
Practice Point: Here the required proof for the application of the “fellow officer” rule was not presented by the People. To prove the arrest was based on a “probable cause I-card” the People were required to show the arresting officer saw the I-card and relied on it. The arresting officer did not testify, so there was a failure of proof requiring suppression of the defendant’s statement.
PLAINTIFF SUED A CHURCH ALLEGING THE CHURCH HELD PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CHURCH WRONGFULLY OUSTED PLAINTIFF FROM THE PROPERTY; RESOLUTION OF THE SUIT WOULD INVOLVE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, NOT RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES; THEREFORE, THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit concerning ownership of church property was not precluded by the First Amendment because the suit could be decided by applying neutral principles of civil law, not religious principles:
The complaint alleged, among other things, that Synod held the church property in trust for the plaintiff, as the beneficial owner, and that Synod wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from the church property in March 2020 following a series of disputes between the plaintiff and Synod. Synod moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing, inter alia, that resolution of the causes of action requires review of ecclesiastical matters over which the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. …
“‘The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs'” … . “However, a court may resolve church property disputes ‘when the case can be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of . . . law, without reference to any religious principle'” … . “‘The neutral principles of law approach requires courts to apply objective, well-established principles of secular law to the issues,’ and ‘[i]n doing so, courts may rely upon internal documents, such as a congregation’s bylaws, but only if those documents do not require interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrine'” … .
Here, contrary to Synod’s contention, it failed to demonstrate that the causes of action cannot be resolved solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to any religious principle … . Lutheran Church of the Risen Christ, Mo. Synod v Atlantic Dist. of the Lutheran Church Mo. Synod, 2026 NY Slip Op 02260, Second Dept 4-15-26
Practice Point: If a lawsuit against a church involves ownership of property and can be decided based on neutral principles of law (not religious principles) the suit is not precluded by the First Amendment and can be brought in state court.
THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RENTAL CAR WAS NOT NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE “GRAVES AMENDMENT,” THE RENTAL CAR DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence submitted by the rental car company (A-1 Cars) did not eliminate a question of fact whether the car was negligently maintained. Plaintiff driver was rear-ended by the rental car:
“Under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (i) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (ii) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing” … . Thus, under the circumstances of this case, in order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint under the Graves Amendment, A-1 Cars was required to show, prima facie, (1) that it owned the subject vehicle, (2) that it engaged in the trade or business of leasing or renting motor vehicles, (3) that the accident occurred during the period of the lease or rental, and (4) that there is no triable issue of fact as to any allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the accident … .
Here, the only evidence submitted by A-1 Cars aside from an uncertified police accident report, which was inadmissible … , was an affidavit from its “Claims Administrator,” Mariley Mendez. The conclusory, unsupported affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, A-1 Cars’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the basis of the Graves Amendment. Among other things, Mendez’s averments that she “check[ed]” the vehicle prior to the rental and that there were no records of mechanical problems with the vehicle were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the vehicle was properly maintained and in good repair at the time of the subject accident … . Joseph v Marmolejos, 2026 NY Slip Op 02256, Second Dept 4-15-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a rental-car company must prove with respect to maintenance of the rental car to take advantage of immunity from liability pursuant to the Graves Amendment.
IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this “smooth, slippery, shiny floor” slip and fall case. The fact that a floor has been polished does not establish negligence. Plaintiff must show the wax or polish was negligently applied:
“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “A prima facie case of the negligent application of wax may be established by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present on the floor” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … .
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was no negligent application of wax to the floor … . Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept 9-15-26
Practice Point: A smooth, slippery, shiny floor is not actionable in a slip and fall case unless there is evidence wax was negligently applied.
PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the negligence and wrongful death action against the municipal defendants should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim or leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in an order which required mother to “stay away” from father and the child. Plaintiff asked the police for help in serving the order on mother and picking up the child. The police attempted to serve the order, but mother slammed the door and would not let them in. District attorneys were then contacted for advice but determined the police could not enter mother’s home. The next day the police were called to mother’s home where the child was found deceased. Mother was convicted of murdering the child. The Second Department held that there was a special relationship between plaintiff and the municipality and the municipality was not entitled to governmental function immunity: The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:
To establish the existence of a special relationship, a plaintiff is required to prove four elements, also referred to as “the Cuffy factors” or “the Cuffy test,” namely:
“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 …). * * *
Generally, the “decision to arrest an individual involves the exercise of discretion . . . and thus is cloaked with governmental immunity” … . However, here, in the face of what was, in effect, a temporary order of protection, the defendant police officers became, at a minimum, “obligated to respond and investigate” … . Therefore, the Village defendants have not conclusively established that their actions were purely discretionary … . Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes a “special relationship” between a plaintiff and a municipality and when a municipality is protected from liability in negligence by governmental function immunity.
THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, A JURISIDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT CURED BY AN AMENDMENT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the indictment was defective because it did not indicate the specific statutory subdivision defendant was accused of violating:
… [W]e agree with defendant that the count of the indictment under which he was convicted was jurisdictionally defective and that the court should not have amended the indictment at the People’s request. While the jurisdictional requirements of an indictment count are ordinarily met by an allegation that the defendant “violated the terms of a specific statute designated by name and section” … , that rule does not apply where, as here, the statute at issue allows for commission under discrete subdivisions and there is no specific allegations regarding the subsection that the defendant allegedly violated … . The second count of the indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02(1), could be satisfied by proof that defendant committed the “bump-up” crime of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.01) in one of four ways, without specifically alleging the provision that defendant violated. Further, the amendment had the effect of “curing . . . a failure . . . to charge or state an offense” or the “legal insufficiency of the factual allegations,” both of which are prohibited by CPL 200.70(2).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 02214, First Dept 4-14-26
Practice Point: If the statute allows for commission of the offense under discrete subdivisions, the specific subdivision under which defendant is charged must be indicated in the indictment. Failure to indicate the subdivision is a jurisdictional defect which apparently cannot be cured by amendment.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT BASED ON “FAMILIAL STATUS” AND “CAREGIVER” DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination under the Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed in this wrongful termination action:
… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to plaintiff’s familial and caregiver status causes of action under the State HRL [Human Rights Law], which prohibits discrimination based on “familial status,” including against “any person who . . . has a child or is in the process of securing legal custody” of a child (Executive Law §§ 292[26][a], 296[1][a]), and the City HRL, which prohibits discrimination based on “caregiver status” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[1][a]). On July 11, 2016, the day before DSC’s [defendant’s] decision to put plaintiff on probation, plaintiff attended a hearing in a custody proceeding regarding his daughter. According to plaintiff, Richard Greenberg, DSC’s co-chief investment officer, questioned whether plaintiff “was sure [he wanted] to do this” (that is, to participate in custody proceedings) and encouraged him to “[g]ive up on [his] daughter.” In addition, at plaintiff’s year-end review meeting, which plaintiff recorded, Greenberg gave him negative feedback about his job performance and stated, “I just want to know . . . is your heart still in it, you know? . . . I mean you’ve got all these things going on.”
Additionally, in January 2017, Jane Park, the firm’s director of business development and client relations, authored a memo for Smith and Greenberg that discussed whether to disclose to firm clients that a more junior investment analyst had received firm equity while plaintiff had not. The memo posited telling clients, as one option, that plaintiff “is going through some personal issues which make[] the current timing less than ideal for ownership disbursement.” Park testified at her deposition that she was referring to the fact that plaintiff was “distracted” because of his divorce and custody fight. …
Taken together, the evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendants’ proffered reasons for denying plaintiff equity and ultimately terminating him were “false, misleading, or incomplete,” and that plaintiff was, in fact, terminated on the basis of his familial or caregiver status … . Mezinev v Donald Smith & Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 02209, First Dept 4-14-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination in the context of an alleged wrongful termination of employment pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED MOTHER A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; THE SERIOUSNESS OF MOTHER’S CONDUCT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE JUDGE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not granted a suspended judgment in this neglect proceeding:
The court abused its discretion in granting the mother a suspended judgment. A court should not vacate a neglect finding except upon a determination that doing so serves the child’s best interests, including “consideration of a parent’s ability to supervise a child and eliminate any threat of future abuse or neglect” … . “[A]t its core, a suspended judgment affords a respondent the opportunity to correct his or her neglectful actions” … . Courts considering whether to grant a suspended judgment should examine four factors: “(1) the respondent’s prior child protective history; (2) the seriousness of respondent’s offense; (3) respondent’s remorse and acknowledgment of the abusive or neglectful nature of his or her act; and (4) respondent’s amenability to correction, including compliance with court orders” (id. at 12 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, Family Court failed to consider the second, third and fourth factors adequately. The trial court addressed the first factor by noting that the mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. As to the second factor, although the mother admitted inflicting excessive corporal punishment on [the child] on more than one occasion and causing him injury, Family court’s decision does not acknowledge the seriousness of the mother’s conduct. Matter of N.G. (Angelica T.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02198, First Dept 4-14-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors Family Court must consider before granting a suspended judgment in a neglect proceeding. Here it was not enough that mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. The seriousness of her conduct must be considered.