You are here: / / People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present...
,

People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor failed to show good cause for her failure to provide timely notice of rebuttal witnesses.  Defendant had provided a “notice of alibi.”  Defendant’s alibi witness was his girlfriend, who testified defendant was home with her at the time of the offense.  The prosecutor did not provide reciprocal notice of rebuttal witnesses who would testify that cell phone records demonstrated defendant was not at home with his girlfriend at the time of the offense.  In spite of the lack of timely notice, the trial court allowed the rebuttal testimony after an adjournment:

CPL 250.20(1) provides, among other things, that within eight days of service of a demand by the People, a defendant “must” serve upon the People a “notice of alibi,” and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service of the notice.” The reciprocal provision, CPL 250.20(2), provides, among other things, that “[w]ithin a reasonable time after receipt of the defendant’s witness list but not later than ten days before trial,” the People “must” serve and file a list of the witnesses the People propose to offer in rebuttal to discredit the defendant’s alibi at the trial, and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service” of the People’s witness list.

CPL 250.20(3) provides that if the defendant calls an alibi witness at trial without having first served the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(1), the court “may exclude any testimony of such witness,” or “may in its discretion receive such testimony, but before doing so, it must, upon application” of the People, “grant an adjournment not in excess of three days” (CPL 250.20[3]). CPL 250.20(4) provides that the provisions of subdivision (3) “shall reciprocally apply” when the People seek to offer alibi rebuttal witnesses without having given the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(2).

Here, the People contend, in effect, that, unlike CPL 250.20(2), which requires the People to show “good cause” for an extension of time to serve the list of alibi rebuttal witnesses, CPL 250.20(3) and (4) do not require such a showing for the court to exercise its discretion in receiving such testimony absent any compliance with the notice requirement. We disagree … . A construction of the statute which requires good cause to be shown before trial, but not during trial, when late notice would be most prejudicial, is both contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, as well as contrary to the intent of the Legislature in amending the statute to comply with the Due Process Clause … . To hold otherwise would mean that CPL 250.20(3) and (4) completely eviscerate the timeliness of notice requirements of CPL 250.20(1) and (2). People v Crevelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01661, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

ess Required Reversal

You might also like
THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),
REQUEST TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 
MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE PLEADINGS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITIY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DEFENSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT FITNESS CENTER; ALLEGEDLY, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE TRAINER INSTRUCTED HIM TO ATTEMPT A BALANCING EXERCISE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PURPORTED REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT TO REDUCE COVERAGE AFTER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS UNENFORCEABLE, THE INSURER IS LIABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).

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

Re: a Third-Party Settlement, Consent of Special Fund Required Before Carrier... Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental...