That was par for the course for Cooperman, who earlier this year, on the occasion of his selection to be the judge who will preside over the trial of the police officers charged with shooting three men outside of a Queens strip club last November, won praise by the Daily News for his propensity for “slamming cop-haters.”  In each of the four other cases in which he was reversed in the last 12 months, Cooperman was dinged for imposing an excessive sentence or for standing by while prosecutors ran roughshod over the defendant’s rights.

In May, Cooperman was reversed for allowing prosecutors to spring a mystery witness on the defense at trial without prior disclosure, and for ignoring other instances of “flagrant” prosecutorial misconduct. People v. Bennett (May 1)

In January, Cooperman convicted Keion Richmond of second-degree assault, even though, according to the Appellate Division, there was no requisite “physical injury” to the victim, a police officer who was bitten by the defendant but did not bleed. People v. Richmond (January 16)

In one case last November, Cooperman committed several errors, including his refusal to instruct the jury about the defendant’s justification defense, in a case in which a father barged into a house erroneously thinking his daughter was held against her will inside. People v. LaPetina (November 28)

In another case last November, Cooperman imposed consecutive sentences on a defendant for each of four counts for selling drugs, resulting in a prison term that was excessive, according to the appellate division, which cut the sentence in half. People v. Jaquez (November 14)

OTHER NOTABLE REVERSALS

NEW YORK COUNTY

EVIDENCE: Justice Charles J. Tejada imposed an excessively harsh sanction on a criminal defendant for failing to properly serve an alibi notice before trial, the Appellate Division said. Tejada barred the defendant, Vincent Ashley, from calling the alibi witness. According to the appellate panel, a short adjournment would have sufficed, given that Ashley had not acted willfully and the prosecutors weren’t prejudiced, since they were already aware of the witness's prior testimony. Under the circumstances of the case, the error was not harmless, said the appellate panel, which was compelled to reverse Ashley’s conviction for selling drugs. People v. Ashley (October 25)

SEARCH: Justice Richard D. Carruthers suppressed evidence seized from the center console of a car that, according to the Appellate Division, the police had every right to search, under the circumstances. The defendant, Jose Grullon, was pulled over for speeding the wrong way on a one-way street and going through a red light, “aggravated misconduct” that “was considerably more suspicious than an ordinary traffic violation,” the appellate panel noted. Before they approached the car, officers also noticed that Grullon seemed to be concealing something in the console. The fact that the officers left a passenger in the car as they questioned Grullon evidently was one of the factors that persuaded Carruthers that the officers didn’t fear for their safety, as they claimed in justifying their decision to quickly search the console. But as the unanimous appellate panel saw it, the fact that a passenger remained within reach of the console was all the more reason why the police were justified in searching it. People v. Grullon (October 23)

TORT: Justice Donna M. Mills approved a jury’s award of damages to Shiro Watanabe that was too stingy, by the Appellate Division’s reckoning. The jury awarded just $100,000 for future pain and suffering, only 20 percent of which he was entitled to collect, given that he was found to be 80 percent at fault for getting hit by a cab while standing in the street. In light of evidence that he suffered a permanently injured, suffers ongoing pain, is likely to develop degenerative arthritis that could possibly require knee replacement surgery, and will need a future operation to remove the rod and screws from his ankle, $300,000 is a more appropriate award, before apportionment, the appellate panel concluded. It was just the eighth time this year that the Appellate Division has found occasion to boost damages awarded by a New York City trial judge to a plaintiff in a personal injury suit. In about twice as many cases, appellate panels have reduced or tossed out awards that they thought were too generous. Watanabe v. Sherpa (October 23)

ATTORNEY’S FEES: Justice Laura E. Drager had good reason to be peeved at an ex-husband who persisted in wrongly accusing his ex-wife and her attorney of engaging in frivolous litigation. But the judge went off the deep end in imposing sanctions on him, the Appellate Division said. Without explaining how she calculated the award, she slapped the husband with a $10,000 bill for his ex-wife’s attorney’s fees, even though the attorney spent just five hours fending off the frivolous motion for sanctions. Given that the attorney’s hourly rate is $375, the husband should be billed for just $1,875, said the appellate panel, reducing the sanction imposed by Drager accordingly. Costantini v. Costantini (October 18)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Chong Min Mun and Soung Eun Hong were in and out of Justice Richard B. Lowe III’s court evidently before either fully realized what had happened to their case, to hear the Appellate Division tell it. Lowe dismissed one cause of action and granted summary judgment to the defendant on the other causes of action. The appellate panel reversed Lowe and reinstated the complaint, observing that “since it is not clear from the record that both parties had deliberately charted a course for summary judgment, that relief should not have been granted in the absence of adequate notice to the litigants.” Chong Min Mun v. Soung Eun Hong (October 25)

BRONX COUNTY

TORT: Justice Sallie Manzanet should have let a company that installed a door security system in a Housing Authority building -- and the company’s insurer -- off the hook for injuries sustained by a tenant who was mugged in the lobby, the Appellate Division said. All of the evidence indicated that the door had been vandalized, and that’s why the assailant was able to enter, according to the appellate panel, which dismissed claims against the door company, after finding no evidence of poor worksmanship or faulty maintenance on its part. New York City Housing Authority v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. (October 25). Back in June, Manzanet was reversed under somewhat similar circumstances. An appellate panel said she unfairly prevented a landlord from presenting evidence that the lock on a lobby door was in good working order and committed other “egregious errors” en route to awarding damages to a tenant who was mugged by an intruder.

PSYCHIATRIC DETENTION: The Appellate Division, in its opinion, didn’t say how long a man identified as Glenn B. had been held in a psychiatric facility after completing his sentence for the attempted murder of his wife a quarter century ago. But Justice Lucy Billings thought he had been there long enough and ordered his conditional release, despite the opinion of his treating psychiatrist that he would be a danger to others if he were released into the community. A unanimous appellate panel tore up the walking papers that Billings had issued, explaining that even though the crime occurred long ago, it was “violent in the extreme.” Moreover, Glenn has continued to exhibit volatile behavior, feels no remorse and takes no responsibility for his crime, and has a history of refusal to take medication, the appellate panel asserted. Matter of Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health v. Glenn B. (October 23)

TORT: Justice Janice L. Bowman tagged the city with liability for what the Appellate Division characterized as the “discretionary act” of a police officer, for which the city shouldn’t be held to account. The officer directed the plaintiff, Deborah Shands, away from a flooded exit and instead merged her back onto a highway, an instruction she was following when she was hit by a truck. Shands v. Escalona (October 23)

KINGS COUNTY

FAMILY: For the second time in October, Justice Paula Hepner was reversed for being, in the Appellate Division’s view, overly solicitous of a father’s rights in a child custody dispute. In this case, Hepner awarded sole custody of a 10-year-old girl to her father. That meant she would have to leave the home of her maternal grandmother, with whom she has lived with another brother since their mother died in 2004. Hepner presided over a hearing during which it became apparent that the girl had formed a deep emotional bond with her grandmother and brother. Yet the judge ruled that the grandmother failed to prove that there were “extraordinary circumstances” that warranted depriving the father of his right to have custody of his child. That determination was based on an incomplete set of facts, according to the Appellate Panel, which found fault with Hepner for failing to order a forensic evaluation of the father's fitness to care for the girl and the psychological impact of separating the girl from her grandmother and brother. The Law Guardian had said such an evaluation was needed and the appellate panel agreed, vacating the custody award and sending the case back to Hepner for further findings. Matter of Rovenia G. M v. Lesley P. A. (October 23)

Earlier this month, Hepner was reversed in another case in which the Appellate Division said she didn’t dig deep enough into the background of an out-of-wedlock dad before awarding joint custody, over the objections of the mom. Matter of Garcia v. Scruggs (October 2)

Hepner was reversed in yet another case earlier this year for what the Appellate Division characterized as undue haste to award custody based on sketchy facts. In that case, however, she was faulted for giving short shrift to questions about the mother’s parenting skills. Matter of Ling Da Chen v. Yue Hua Zhou (April 17)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Justice Joseph Levine was reversed for summarily dismissing one medical malpractice claim and was reversed in another case on the same day for denying the defendant’s motion to summarily dismiss the claim.

Josephine Deltoro’s medical malpractice complaint against Wyckoff Heights Medical Center was the claim that Levine erroneously dismissed, according to the Appellate Division. Levine apparently agreed with the medical center that the doctor wasn’t its agent or employee. In fact, it is “undisputed” that he was an employee of the center, the appellate panel said. But there are questions about whether the doctor was present at the time the alleged malpractice occurred, and whether he was acting in the scope of his employment. Those are issues that must be addressed at trial, said the Appellate Division, reversing Levine and reinstating the complaint. Deltoro v. Arya (October 23)

Aleksandr Posokhov’s lawsuit against dentist Gregory Oselkin, on the other hand, should have been summarily dismissed, the Appellate Division said. Expert testimony presented by the dentist established that the treatment received by Posokhov was neither negligent nor a proximate cause of his alleged injuries. In response, the plaintiff offered nothing but “conclusory and unsupported allegations” of dental negligence. Posokhov v. Oselkin (October 23)
 
INSURANCE: Justice Diane A. Johnson relied on inadmissible evidence to dismiss Rachel Hochhauser’s claim for uninsured motorists coverage under her son’s insurance policy, the Appellate Division said. She allowed the insurer to introduce an investigator’s report in which the son allegedly stated that his mother only occasionally stayed at his house, a concession that led Johnson to conclude that she wasn’t a member of the household and therefore wasn’t covered by his policy. Trouble is, the investigator’s report shouldn’t have been allowed into evidence, according to the appellate panel, which debunked Johnson’s conclusion that it was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Aside from that, all of the other evidence revealed that she is the sole owner of the house, spends weekends and holidays there, has her own key and bedroom, pays the heating and water bill real estate taxes and is very much a member of the household. In fact, Johnson not only should have allowed her to proceed with her claim for coverage, she should have granted summary judgment in Hochhauser’s favor, the appellate panel concluded. Hochhauser v. Electric Insurance Co. (October 23)