clear and convincing standard in New York

1997The Court of Appeals has been reluctant to extend the clear and convincing standard to new categories of claims (Matter of Capoccia, supra, 59 NY2d, at 553 ; cf., Matter of Martin v Ambach, 67 NY2d 975 [1986]), so long as they involve more than mere "property interest[s]” (Matter of Capoccia, supra, 59 NY2d, at 553 ) or concern "exceptional civil matters” (Matter of Storar, supra, 52 NY2d, at 379).

1988The clear and convincing standard exists so as to " 'impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision’ ” (Matter of Storar, supra, at 379, quoting from Addington v Texas, 441 US 418, 427 ), and it " ' "forbids relief whenever the evidence is loose, equivocal or contradictory” ’ ” (see, Matter of Storar, supra, at 379, quoting from Backer Mgt.

2007As such, courts must use at least a clear and convincing standard in order to ensure parents’ due process rights are respected. ( 455 US 745, 747 [1982]; accord Family Ct Act § 622.) Yet counsel relies on this decision to assert that the permanency hearing is meant to ensure parents’ due process rights.

2007As such, courts must use at least a clear and convincing standard in order to ensure parents' due process rights are respected. ( 455 US 745, 747 [1982]; accord Family Ct Act § 622.) Yet counsel relies on this decision to assert that the permanency hearing is meant to ensure parents' due process rights.

2025Supreme Court found that "[a] clear and convincing standard applies only when a case involves the denial of, addresses, or adjudicates fundamental 'personal or liberty rights' not at issue in this action" ( People v Trump , 2024 NY Slip Op 30493[U], *75 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024], citing Matter of Capoccia , 59 NY2d 549, 552-553 [1983] [listing only the interests at stake in the cases relied on by the proponent there of the clear and convincing standard]).

2025Supreme Court found that "[a] clear and convincing standard applies only when a case involves the denial of, addresses, or adjudicates fundamental 'personal or liberty rights' not at issue in this action" ( People v Trump , 2024 NY Slip Op 30493[U], *75 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024], citing Matter of Capoccia , 59 NY2d 549, 552-553 [1983] [listing only the interests at stake in the cases relied on by the proponent there of the clear and convincing standard]).

2012Further, the mother never requested an adjournment to better prepare her defense or moved to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Kila DD., 28 AD3d 805, 806 [3d Dept 2006]).

2012Further, the mother never requested an adjournment to better prepare her defense or moved to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Kila DD., 28 AD3d 805, 806 [3d Dept 2006]).

2025Requirement of a clear and convincing standard is a recognition of the gravity of the particular interest at stake ( see People v Johnson , 93 NY2d 254, 258 [1999]), and the truncated review process afforded by an expedited non-summary procedural mechanism ( see Association of Contr.

2025Requirement of a clear and convincing standard is a recognition of the gravity of the particular interest at stake ( see People v Johnson , 93 NY2d 254, 258 [1999]), and the truncated review process afforded by an expedited non-summary procedural mechanism ( see Association of Contr.

2025Plumbers of City of N.Y. v Contracting Plumbers Assn. of Brooklyn & Queens , 302 NY 495, 498 [1951]).

2025Plumbers of City of N.Y. v Contracting Plumbers Assn. of Brooklyn & Queens , 302 NY 495, 498 [1951]).

2025The abbreviated Penal Law § 964 procedure thus required a clear and convincing standard ( see Matter of Industrial Plants Corp. v Industrial Liquidating Co ., 286 App Div 568, 570-571 [1st Dept 1955]).

2025The abbreviated Penal Law § 964 procedure thus required a clear and convincing standard ( see Matter of Industrial Plants Corp. v Industrial Liquidating Co ., 286 App Div 568, 570-571 [1st Dept 1955]).

2021The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that "makes it highly probable that the alleged activity actually occurred" ( People v Warrior , 57 AD3d 1471 , 1472 [4th Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Stewart , 61 AD3d 1059, 1060 [3d Dept 2009]).

2018In Schmidt v State , the Iowa Supreme Court explained, "a clear and convincing standard balances the interest of an innocent defendant and that of the state. . . . [W]e believe 'it is far worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty one' such that 'the scale tips in favor of the [defendant's] interest.' Thus, we simultaneously vindicate this principle and recognize the interest of the state in finality of criminal litigation by adopting a clear and convincing standard" ( 909 NW2d at 797 [citation omitted]).

2017In our view, however, Liotta’s numerical qualification did not provide any clarity as to what Liotta meant by a “close call.” Notwithstanding the 90% certainty in his opinion, Liotta did not trivialize the 10% margin of error and testified that “you know, 10 percent. . . is a pretty big amount when you’re, you know, in terms of the, the certainty.” As such, Liotta’s use of numerical percentages to explain his “close call” characterization, coupled with his testimony that 10% could be “a pretty big amount,” only muddled his opinion (see Matter of Dedrick M., 89 AD2d 781, 781 [1982]).

2017In our view, however, Liotta's numerical qualification did not provide any clarity as to what Liotta meant by a "close call." Notwithstanding the 90% certainty in his opinion, Liotta did not trivialize the 10% margin of error and testified that "you know, 10 percent . . . is a pretty big amount when you're, you know, in terms of the, the certainty." As such, Liotta's use of numerical percentages to explain his "close call" characterization, coupled with his testimony that 10% could be "a pretty big amount," only muddled his opinion ( see Matter of Dedrick M. , 89 AD2d 781, 781 [1982]).

2016The fact that the defendant was acquitted at the trial of sexual abuse in the first degree established only that the trial court did not find all the elements of that offense to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a more rigorous standard of proof than the clear and convincing standard applicable to SORA determinations (see People v Kost, 82 AD3d 729 [2011]; People v Vasquez, 49 AD3d 1282, 1284 [2008]).

2016The fact that the defendant was acquitted at the trial of sexual abuse in the first degree established only that the trial court did not find all the elements of that offense to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a more rigorous standard of proof than the clear and convincing standard applicable to SORA determinations ( see People v Kost , 82 AD3d 729 ; People v Vasquez , 49 AD3d 1282, 1284 ).

2014The clear and convincing standard “means evidence that is neither equivocal nor open to opposing presumptions.” (Solomon v State of New York, 146 AD2d 439, 440 [1st Dept 1989]; Smith v State of New York, 24 Misc 3d 1234[A] , 2009 NY Slip Op 51744[U] [Ct Cl 2009].) The standard is significant and a higher and more demanding standard than preponderance of the evidence, as it serves to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision.

2014(M atter of Storar, 52 NY2d 363, 379 [1981] [this higher than preponderance standard “ ‘forbids relief whenever the evidence is loose, equivocal or contradictory’ ”]; Matter of Poldrugovaz, 50 AD3d 117, 127 [2d Dept 2008] [“a party who must establish (his, her) case by clear and convincing evidence must satisfy (the trier of fact) that the evidence makes it highly probable that what (he, she) claims is what actually happened” (citing NY PJI 1:64)]; Colorado v New Mexico, 467 US 310, 316 [1984].) Against this backdrop of legal precedent, the State has a high hurdle to cross in this case.

2014(M atter of Storar, 52 NY2d 363, 379 [1981] [this higher than preponderance standard “ ‘forbids relief whenever the evidence is loose, equivocal or contradictory’ ”]; Matter of Poldrugovaz, 50 AD3d 117, 127 [2d Dept 2008] [“a party who must establish (his, her) case by clear and convincing evidence must satisfy (the trier of fact) that the evidence makes it highly probable that what (he, she) claims is what actually happened” (citing NY PJI 1:64)]; Colorado v New Mexico, 467 US 310, 316 [1984].) Against this backdrop of legal precedent, the State has a high hurdle to cross in this case.