Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
In Rosenfeld, follows 1971 Court of Appeals and 1975 First Department precedent on suspending child support without questioning its validity. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In City of New York v. Jones, denies city's summary judgment motion seeking truck forfeiture under Administrative Code, indicating skepticism of expansive government enforcement. City of New York v. Jones ↗
Judicial activismJudicial restraint
In People v. Sparks, exercises broad plenary power under CPL 470.15 to reduce sentence as unduly harsh even within statutory range. People v. Sparks ↗
This case concerns a post-divorce custody and support dispute in which the mother sought pendente lite child support after an earlier order had suspended the father's obligation. The court had previously found, after a lengthy trial, that the mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, justifying suspension of support under established case law allowing such measures for interference with visitation or constructive emancipation. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the mother's motion, reasoning that she failed to demonstrate compliance with the conditions for resuming support or any exigent circumstances warranting modification, and that she had not appealed the original suspension order. The decision clarifies that Domestic Relations Law § 241, which addresses maintenance, does not preclude judicially developed rules for suspending child support.
This case involved a mother's petition in New York Family Court to modify a 2015 custody and visitation order originally issued by a Texas court after she moved with the child to New York. The father appealed the Family Court's grant of the petition, contending that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Appellate Division reversed the order, vacated it, and remanded the matter, holding that New York courts could not modify the Texas order without the Texas court ceding jurisdiction or both parents and child no longer residing there, and that the court had not properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction by communicating with the Texas court or limiting the order's duration.
This case involved a mother's petition in New York Family Court to modify a 2015 custody and visitation order originally issued by a Texas court after she moved with the child to New York. The father appealed the Family Court's grant of the petition, contending that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Appellate Division reversed the order, vacated it, and remanded the matter, holding that New York courts could not modify the Texas order without the Texas court ceding jurisdiction or both parents and child no longer residing there, and that the court had not properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction by communicating with the Texas court or limiting the order's duration.
This case involved a petition under New York's Mental Hygiene Law article 10 to revoke the release of D.M., a convicted sex offender, from strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) in the community and to order his civil commitment to a secure facility. D.M. had a history of sexual offenses against children dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder and antisocial personality disorder, and had previously been confined before being released under SIST in 2021. The Supreme Court found after a hearing that D.M. repeatedly and flagrantly violated multiple SIST conditions, including prohibited contact with minors, missing sex offender treatment sessions, and GPS monitoring issues. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the violations supported the determination that D.M. was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.
The case involved the City of New York seeking to seize and forfeit a food vendor's truck after he was fined $2,600 for unlicensed vending and related health code violations. The lower court denied the City's motion for summary judgment and scheduled a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that material questions of fact existed as to whether the forfeiture provisions were at least partly punitive in nature and thus subject to the excessive fines clauses of the U.S. and New York Constitutions, and whether the forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate to the offense.
This case involved a Family Court neglect proceeding where the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a petition alleging that the father had neglected the child by committing domestic violence against the nonrespondent mother in the child's presence. ACS requested, and the court initially granted, a temporary release of the child to the mother along with an order placing her under ACS supervision, even though the child had remained in her care and no safety concerns were raised about her. The mother appealed after a later order vacated the supervision requirement. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Family Court Act § 1017 and other provisions do not authorize ACS supervision of a nonrespondent parent already caring for the child, including when the parent is a domestic violence survivor, and that ACS's policy of monitoring such parents lacks statutory basis.