Nelson Stephen Roman

In Laguerre v. Maurice, a former church elder sued the pastor and church for defamation per se after the pastor allegedly told congregation members that the plaintiff was homosexual and had viewed gay pornography on the church computer, leading to his removal from duties and membership. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the First Amendment due to ecclesiastical matters and that the statements did not constitute defamation per se without proof of special damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss the defamation claim, holding that resolving the dispute did not require inquiry into religious doctrine and thus did not violate the First Amendment, but that false imputation of homosexuality no longer qualifies as defamation per se given societal and legal changes regarding sexual orientation. The court reasoned that evolving public policy, including anti-discrimination laws and recognition of same-sex marriage, rendered prior precedent outdated, so the plaintiff failed to allege special damages as required.

civil rightsreligious libertytorts & liability

This case involved a SORA risk assessment hearing for a defendant with a history of mental illness who had been convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree. After outbursts led to his removal from the courtroom, the hearing proceeded in his absence and the Supreme Court designated him a level three sex offender based on a risk assessment instrument scoring 115 points. The defendant appealed, arguing that due process required a competency examination before proceeding without him. The Appellate Division held that the court properly continued the hearing, as the defendant had previously been found fit to proceed, showed no current signs of incompetency warranting further examination, and the People met their burden to prove the risk factors by clear and convincing evidence, including 25 points for sexual intercourse based on admissions and statements in the record. The order designating the defendant a level three sex offender was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this personal injury action arising from a construction site fall, the plaintiff's attorney secretly videotaped the defendant's independent medical examination of the plaintiff without court approval or disclosure to opposing counsel, then revealed the recording for the first time during trial testimony, prompting a mistrial. The Appellate Division held that court approval must be obtained before recording an IME and that any such recording must be disclosed under CPLR 3101. The court further determined that the mistrial and the examining physician's refusal to testify voluntarily at a retrial resulted from the attorney's conduct and unfounded accusations by the trial judge, reversing the lower court's denial of the defendants' motions. It granted leave for a new examination by an orthopedist of the defendants' choosing, awarded costs against plaintiff's counsel under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and remitted the matter to a different justice.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a child support enforcement proceeding in which the mother, who had been ordered to pay support after a divorce and custody award to the father, repeatedly sought downward modifications that were dismissed and then failed to appear in court despite summonses and orders. After relocating to Nigeria, she sought to participate by telephone but did not comply with requirements to appear personally, leading to a finding that she willfully violated the support order and a recommendation for incarceration. On appeal from the denial of her objections, the court applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss the appeal, reasoning that her willful absence from the jurisdiction frustrated enforcement of prior orders, created a direct nexus to the proceedings, and warranted dismissal to penalize evasion of judicial mandates and avoid prejudice to the other party.

family lawprocedure