Fundamental and Harmless Error in Matrimonial and Family Matters
There is a substantial difference between fundamental error and harmless error. An attorney considering an appeal must consider this distinction when advising a client whether or not to take an appeal from an adverse order or judgment.
October 18, 2019 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
In Newton v. McFarlane, the Family Court stated only its conclusion—that the mother had established changed circumstances and that awarding custody to the mother was in the child's best interests—but no decision was ever issued. 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 04386, 2019 WL 2363541, at *6 (2d Dept. 2019). The Appellate Division, citing CPLR 4213[b] observed that "[i]nherent in the proposition that a reviewing court will give deference to the findings made by the hearing court is that the hearing court issued either a written or oral decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law … No deference can be given to a decision which does not exist or to findings which were not made."
A trial court decision in a matrimonial or family court matter must comply with CPLR 4213(b), which requires that the decision of the court must state the facts it deems essential. The mechanics of complying with this mandate requires the trial court to (1) determine the facts, (2) determine the applicable law, (3) apply the law to its findings of facts, and (4) then exercise its discretion in reaching its conclusion. Based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, a judgment or order is then entered. Court rules require that findings of fact and conclusions of law be in a separate paper from the judgment. 22 NYCRR §202.50.
Many lawyers appeal from a trial court decision on the ground that the trial court made numerous evidentiary errors, and are confounded when the Appellate Division affirms the judgment. This occurs when the errors are harmless error. On the other hand, reversal is required when the error is a fundamental error. In this article we will discuss the distinction between fundamental error and harmless error in matrimonial and family court matters.
When a trial court makes evidentiary errors or rulings which operate to deny an individual his fundamental right to a fair trial, an appellate court must reverse the judgment and grant a new trial, without regard to any evaluation as to whether the errors contributed to the result, and even in the absence of an objection. This is called a "fundamental error." Rodriguez v. Cato, 63 A.D.2d 922 (1st Dept. 1978).
The denial of the right to assistance of counsel is a fundamental error. In Moloney v. Moloney, the court held that the deprivation of a party's fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding required reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party's position. 19 A.D.3d 496 (2d Dept. 2005). In DiBella v. DiBella, the Appellate Division held that the deprivation of a party's statutory right to counsel requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party's position. 161 A.D.3d 1239, 75 NYS3d 371 (3d Dept. 2018). In the absence of the requisite statutory advisement of her right to counsel or a valid waiver of such right the mother was deprived of her fundamental right to counsel.
It is a fundamental error for a party to be denied due process. In Pringle v. Pringle, reversal was required because the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner failed to comply with the rudiments of due process. 296 A.D.2d 828 (4th Dept. 2002). The Appellate Division observed that a hearing to determine an application for modification of a support order is governed by the rules of evidence. Unsworn testimony is inadmissible and unverified financial data cannot serve as a basis for a Family Court order for support. The colloquy among counsel and the Hearing Examiner was not a substitute for testimony.
The failure of a court to advise a respondent of his right to counsel before respondent partially admitted the allegations in a PINS petition was been held to be reversible error as a denial of due process. See Matter of Mark S., 144 A.D.2d 1010 (4th Dept. 1988); Matter of Damian C., 161 A.D.2d 1206 (4th Dept. 1990).
In Matter of King v. King, 167 A.D.3d 1272 (3d Dept. 2018), a custody proceeding, the court held that although a movant seeking to vacate a default is generally required to demonstrate both that there was a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear and a meritorious defense, no showing is required where a party's fundamental due process rights have been denied. Notice is a fundamental component of due process. In the absence of notice to the wife, Family Court's sua sponte consideration of extraneous allegations violated the wife's due process rights.
The denial of the right to testify and to present witnesses is the denial of a fundamental right. In Matter of Liska J v. Benjamin K, 2019 WL 2835000 (3d Dept. 2019), a custody proceeding, the father was deprived of procedural due process when Family Court excluded testimony as to his fitness as a parent. As a result, the father was prevented from addressing all of the relevant factors, including who should be the primary custodian and what he did to foster a relationship between the child and the mother. The father's stepfather was precluded from testifying as to his observations of the father as a parent. The Appellate Division held the court's failure to allow the father a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, coupled with the court's own limitations on its decision, constituted a fundamental due process error requiring reversal of Family Court's order.
The denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to confer with counsel are fundamental errors requiring reversal. In Matter of Dominic B., the courts failure to afford the mother the opportunity to cross‑examine a key witness, a caseworker for petitioner, constituted a denial of her fundamental right to due process. 138 A.D.3d 1395 (4th Dept. 2016). In Matter of Turner v. Valdespino, Family Court violated the mothers fundamental due process rights when it instructed her not to consult with her attorney during recesses, which resulted in her being unable to speak to her attorney over extended periods of time. 140 A.D.3d 974 (2d Dept. 2016). Family Court's conduct deprived the mother of due process.
The failure to advise a party of the right to counsel in a proceeding where he is entitled to the assignment of counsel is reversible error. In Matter of Tyler D, the Appellate Division held that the failure to apprise a respondent in a PINS proceeding of the right to remain silent constituted reversible error, even if the respondent consented to the disposition in the presence of counsel or fails to seek to withdraw his or her admissions based on the failure. 166 A.D.3d 612 (2d Dept. 2018).
The inability of a trial court to state any facts in support of its determination after the case was remitted by the Appellate Division to it for the purpose of formulating findings of fact constituted fundamental error. Rosenblatt-Roth v. Rosenblatt-Roth, 78 A.D.2d 771 (4th Dept. 1980).
At the other end of the spectrum there is harmless error. CPLR 2002 codifies the 'harmless error" rule in New York. It provides that: "An error in a ruling of the court shall be disregarded if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced."
Under CPLR 2002 the erroneous admission of improper evidence is harmless error, and not a basis for reversal if the outcome probably would have been the same even if the evidence had been excluded. Where the trial court erroneously excludes competent and relevant evidence, reversal is appropriate only if the excluded evidence probably would have been a "substantial influence" in producing a different result. See, e.g., Khan v. Galvin, 206 A.D.2d 776 (3d Dept. 1994); Walker v. State, 111 A.D.2d 164 (2d Dept. 1985). For example, reversal was not required where improperly admitted evidence was of a "quibbling nature." Fishman v. Scheuer, 39 N.Y.2d 502 (1976). The reading of deposition transcript into evidence was harmless error where its contents were merely duplicative of evidence that had been independently admitted. Green Is. Assoc. v. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 170 A.D.2d 854 (3d Dept. 1991).
In Wilbur v. Wilbur, the parties' stipulated to prevent the court from considering the fault of either party prior to the commencement of the divorce action. 116 A.D.2d 953 (3d Dept. 1986). Trial Term, in that portion of its decision dealing with maintenance, pointed out that it was plaintiff's "initiative to break up the marriage." The Appellate Division held that in light of the parties' stipulation, this was improper. However, the error was harmless since Trial Term's decision demonstrated a careful analysis of all of the relevant statutory factors and since the amount awarded was fair and appropriate.
It has been held that an error is harmless where the admissible evidence amply supports the court's determination, and it does not appear from the record that the court relied upon that inadmissible evidence in making its determination. In re Michael G., 300 A.D.2d 1144 (4th Dept. 2002). Error in admitting a document is harmless where it does not appear that the court relied on the document, and the other evidence adduced at the hearing supports the court's determination. See In re Sherri M.K., 292 A.D.2d 868, 869 (4th Dept. 2002); Matter of Barone v. Milks, 289 A.D.2d 931 (4th Dept. 2001); Liza C. v. Noel C., 207 A.D.2d 974 (4th Dept. 1994).
In Matter of Lane v. Lane, the Appellate Division held that Family Court erred in admitting the statements made to the court-appointed psychologist by the son's half-sister about abuse she and another half-sister had suffered at the hands of the mother. 68 A.D.3d 995 (2d Dept. 2009). Although previous allegations of abuse or neglect made by a child are admissible in custody or visitation proceedings if they are corroborated, the half-sister's statements to the forensic evaluator were largely uncorroborated. However, the error was harmless, as there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination, without consideration of the statements, that it was not in the son's best interests to have unsupervised contact with his mother.
Where a Law Guardian's report contained inadmissible hearsay, the error was harmless where there was no indication that the court relied upon the report in making its determination and the admissible evidence at the hearing supported the court's determination. See Matter of Barone v. Milks, 289 A.D.2d 931 (4th Dept. 2001).
However, although individual errors might be deemed harmless when considered separately, a new trial will be ordered when these errors, considered collectively, cause substantial prejudice to a party (Platovsky v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 699, 700 (2d Dept. 2000)), or are unduly prejudicial (McGloin v. Golbi, 49 A.D.3d 610, 611 (2d Dept. 2008)).
|Conclusion
As we have seen, there is a substantial difference between fundamental error and harmless error. An attorney considering an appeal must consider this distinction when advising a client whether or not to take an appeal from an adverse order or judgment.
Joel R. Brandes is an attorney in New York and the author of the nine volume treatise Law and the Family New York, 2d, and Law and the Family New York Forms (five volumes), both published by Thomson Reuters, and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250