You are here: / / “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” IS A BAILABLE FELONY (CT APP...
,

“MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” IS A BAILABLE FELONY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Hallligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined “making a terroristic threat” is a bailable felony:

Michael Cavagnolo was arrested and charged with making a terroristic threat after he repeatedly called the Hyde Park Police Department emergency line threatening to commit violent acts against officers, their families, and Police Department property. County Court fixed bail pursuant to CPL 510.10 (4) (a). That paragraph makes bailable all violent felony offenses listed in Penal Law § 70.02, with two specific exceptions. One of the offenses listed in Penal Law § 70.02 is the crime of making a terroristic threat (see Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]). Paragraph (g) of CPL 510.10 (4), however, makes bailable the felony crimes of terrorism defined in Penal Law article 490 but expressly excludes the crime of making a terroristic threat.

Although these two paragraphs are difficult to reconcile, the text and disjunctive structure of CPL 510.10 (4) indicate that paragraph (g) was not intended to narrow the independent authorization provided in paragraph (a) to set monetary bail for all violent felony offenses listed therein. We therefore hold that making a terroristic threat is a bail-eligible offense. Accordingly, we reverse. People ex rel. Ellis v Imperati, 2025 NY Slip Op 03646, CtApp 6-17-25

Practice Point: Despite seemingly conflicting statutory provisions, “making a terroristic threat” was deemed a bailable felony by the Court of Appeals.

 

You might also like
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE CHARGES RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE MURDERS, COMMITTED NEARLY TWO YEARS APART, WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JURY WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY CONSIDERING SEPARATELY THE PROOF FOR EACH OFFENSE (CT APP).
IF A DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA CASTS DOUBT UPON DEFENDANT’S GUILT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA, THE JUDGE MUST “INQUIRE FURTHER;” THIS ISSUE CAN BE APPEALED IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OR VACATE THE CONVICTION; HOWEVER THIS EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF A DEFENDANT FIRST RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT HIS GUILT AT SENTENCING (CT APP). ​
AN INDICATION THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED, REVEALED WHEN THE TROOPER RAN THE PLATES, DID NOT SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE WEAPON AND DRUGS FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
EVEN THOUGH THE SORA RISK LEVEL CAME OUT THE SAME (115 POINTS), THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRST REMOVED 15 POINTS WHICH WERE BASED ON AN INAPPLICABLE RISK FACTOR AND THEN ADDED 15 POINTS BASED ON A RISK FACTOR NOT INCLUDED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT; THAT CONSTITUTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WITHOUT NOTICE (CT APP).
NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE SANDOVAL RULING AT TRIAL, THE OBJECTION WAS NOT ON THE PRECISE GROUND RAISED ON APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS THEREFORE NOT PRESERVED.
THE STANDARD FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” IS THE SAME AS FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL” IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW’S DWI SCHEME; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER “INTOXICATION” STANDARD TO “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
LOAN FUNDED BY THE PROCEEDS OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING IS ENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BAIL MAY BE IMPOSED ON A DEFENDANT WHO IS CHARGED WITH COMMITTING NEW OFFENSES... THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED...