You are here: / A HEARING REGARDING A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE...

Search Results

/

A HEARING REGARDING A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) CANNOT BE WAIVED AS A CONDITION OF A PLEA AGREEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a concurring opinion and a three-judge dissent, determined the hearing regarding a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) cannot be waived as part of a plea agreement:

The issue on appeal is whether, as a condition of a negotiated plea agreement, a defendant may waive a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing to determine their eligibility for an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The Legislature designed the DVSJA’s alternative sentencing framework to remedy a systemic injustice of the criminal legal system. Specifically, the Legislature recognized that the standard sentencing scheme fails to adequately consider how domestic violence impacts a survivor defendant’s criminal conduct, and their potential for rehabilitation, resulting in harsh and unfair sentences for many survivors. The DVSJA, in Penal Law § 60.12, provides a survivor defendant with the opportunity to request a hearing to establish the impacts of domestic violence in their case and their eligibility for a lesser sentence that accords with the legislative purpose of fair and compassionate treatment of survivors.

Here, defendant N.H. requested a reduced sentence under the DVSJA sentencing framework or, in the alternative, a section 60.12 hearing to demonstrate her eligibility for such a sentence. The prosecution subsequently offered, and N.H. accepted, a plea bargain contingent on N.H.’s waiver of a section 60.12 hearing. We hold that section 60.12 hearings are not waivable as a condition of a plea agreement. People v N.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 02437, CtApp 4-23-26

Practice Point: A defendant eligible for a reduced sentence hearing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act cannot waive the hearing as a condition for a plea agreement.

 

/ , , ,

TO THE EXTENT VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SECTION 370 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE RENTAL-CAR COMPANIES TO PROVIDE PRIMARY LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE TO RENTER-DRIVERS, SECTION 370 IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL “GRAVES AMENDMENT” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the federal “Graves Amendment (49 USC 30106),” which relieves rental-car companies of vicarious liability for the negligence of the renter-drivers, preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 to the extent that section 370 has been interpreted to require rental companies to provide primary liability insurance coverage to renters. But section 370’s requirement that rental-car companies carry a specified minimum amount of insurance is not preempted by the Graves Amendment:

The Appellate Division [held] that “the Graves Amendment does not supersede Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 insofar as it is a state law that requires rental car companies to carry a specified minimum amount of insurance for each of their vehicles” but “is superseded to the extent it requires a rental car company to ‘provide primary insurance to their renters up to the minimum liability limits provided by the statute’ ” … . The Court reasoned that “[t]o hold otherwise would rescue every vicarious liability claim up to statutory minimum insurance amounts and render the Graves Amendment’s preemption clause a nullity” … . The Court further held that section 370 does not reverse preempt the Graves Amendment under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, because the Graves Amendment “does not entirely ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ ” section 370 … . * * *

We note that the Graves Amendment does not free car rental companies from all liability arising from the use of a rented vehicle. On the contrary, it expressly permits States to impose liability on rental companies for damages arising from their own negligence or criminal wrongdoing (see 49 USC § 30106 [a] [2]). Nor does the Graves Amendment restrict New York’s ability to require rental companies to obtain insurance, no matter what kind, “for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” (id. § 30106 [b] [1]). Our decision today does not affect section 370’s requirement that car rental companies obtain insurance coverage for such other liability or for the privilege of registering vehicles in New York. Rather, we narrowly hold that the Graves Amendment preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 to the extent that it requires car rental companies to provide primary liability insurance to their renters up to the statute’s minimum liability amounts. Second Child v Edge Auto, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02436, CtApp 4-23-26

Practice Point: The interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 which required rental-car companies to provide primary liability insurance to renter-drivers has been preempted by the federal “Graves Amendment.”​

 

/ ,

THE WILL BEQUEATHED THE REAL PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF ALONE; THE DEFENDANT ADMINSTRATOR DREW UP A DEED WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AS JOINT TENANTS; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE DEED IS VOID AB INITIO OR VOIDABLE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEED WAS VOIDABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined that the deed drawn up by defendant, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, which was inconsistent with a specific bequest in the will, was voidable, not void ab initio. The will bequeathed the real property to plaintiff alone. The defendant administrator drew up a deed which transferred the property to plaintiff and defendant as joint tenants. Supreme Court determined deed was void ab initio. The Second Department reversed and determined the deed was voidable. The opinion is complex and cannot be fairly summarized here:

The primary question presented in this appeal is whether a transfer of property by an administrator c.t.a. in a manner that is inconsistent with a specific bequest in a will is voidable or void ab initio. In our view, an administrator c.t.a. who receives letters of administration c.t.a. from the Surrogate’s Court is cloaked with apparent authority to make a transfer of property from the estate, even if that transfer is contrary to the terms of the decedent’s will. As such, the transfer is voidable, not void ab initio.

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: On April 13, 1998, Floribel Nelson (hereinafter the decedent) died. Prior to her death, the decedent owned real property located in Brooklyn (hereinafter the subject property). In her will, the decedent bequeathed her entire estate, including the subject property, to the plaintiff, who was the decedent’s grandniece, and two other family members who had apparently predeceased the decedent. Because the will further provided that, “if any [of the named heirs] do not survive [the decedent], then his or her share shall be divided equally among the survivors, and if there is only one survivor, said survivor shall take the whole estate,” the plaintiff was the sole surviving beneficiary of the decedent’s estate at the time of the decedent’s death. Rhiney v Rhiney, 2026 NY Slip Op 02428, Second Dept 4-22-26

Practice Point: Here a deed drawn up by the administrator of the estate conveyed decedent’s real property to the administrator and the plaintiff as joint tenants. However, the will bequeathed the property to plaintiff alone. The court was asked to determine if the deed was void ab initio or voidable. The deed was deemed voidable.

 

/ , ,

HERE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S VOICE WAS MUCH LESS DEFINITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL THAN THE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, RAISING A QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a reopened suppression hearing, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the hearing based upon discrepancies between the testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial. The trial testimony was less definitive and unequivocal, raising a question about whether there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest:

The defendant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing on the basis that an individual had testified, during the trial, that he had told the police that the voice of the alleged kidnapper, who the individual had heard speaking on the telephone, was “possibly” that of the defendant, and the individual also admitted to testifying before the grand jury that he identified the voice after being shown a photograph of the defendant. Whereas, the police testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing regarding the same individual’s identification of the defendant’s voice, which formed the basis for the defendant’s arrest, was more definitive and unequivocal, and did not involve the viewing of a photograph. We agree.

Courts have the discretion to reopen a suppression hearing based upon new facts, which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the suppression motion, pertinent to the suppression issue … . These new facts need not establish a constitutional violation on their face, but must be facts that would either materially affect, or have affected, the earlier determination … . Here, where the reliability of a witness’s identification of the defendant’s voice as that of one of the perpetrators of the crime, which primarily formed the basis for the defendant’s arrest, was called into question in light of that witness’s trial testimony, an issue of fact was raised regarding whether there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest … . Although motions to reopen suppression hearings are generally denied where the new facts proffered go only to the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s arrest, here, the defendant could not be presumed to know the basis of the communications or conduct between police, leading to his arrest … . The failure of trial counsel to move to reopen the suppression hearing on this ground was therefore both objectively unreasonable as well as prejudicial to the defendant … . Contrary to the People’s contention, this is not a case in which trial counsel’s error can be explained as part of any strategic design … . People v Clark, 2026 NY Slip Op 02414, Second Dept 4-22-26

Practice Point: Here trial testimony about the identification of defendant’s voice was not as definitive or unequivocal as the testimony at the suppression hearing raising a question whether there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the hearing. The matter was remitted for a reopened hearing.​

 

/ ,

IT WAS ERROR FOR THE JUDGE TO DELEGATE TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ASC) THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S THERAPEUTIC SUPERVISED PARENTAL ACCESS; ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined it was error for the judge to delegate to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) the authority to determine mother’s therapeutic supervised parental access. The Second Department made it clear that its decision to the contrary in Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.), 121 AD 2d 1006, should no longer be followed:

Eleven years ago, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, this Court, in Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.) (121 AD3d 1006, 1007), held that a determination of the Family Court to limit the father to supervised parental access with the subject children at the discretion of the petitioning agency had a sound and substantial basis in the record. This holding seemingly indicated that a court may delegate its authority to set parental access to an agency in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. However, since that appeal was decided, this Court has made clear, in numerous other appeals, that a court may not delegate its authority in such a way as to permit a determination of parental access to be made by either a therapist, a parent, or by the subject children … . Considering the foregoing, and that “[t]he determination of visitation is entrusted to the court based upon the best interests of the children” … , to the extent that Matter of Victoria P. (Victor P.), stands for the proposition that a court in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may delegate its authority to determine issues of parental access to an agency, that case should no longer be followed. Thus, here, the Family Court erred by delegating to ACS the authority to determine the mother’s therapeutic supervised parental access with the child … . Matter of Jayceon H. (Aniya M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02405, Second Dept 4-22-26

Practice Point: A court cannot delegate its authority to determine issues of parental access to an agency.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendant in this foreclosure action had standing to argue the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was jurisdictionally defective, despite defendant’s transfer of the subject real property during the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff had not waived a deficiency judgment and the time for seeking one had not elapsed. Therefore defendant still had an interest in defending the action, i.e., defendant had standing to contest the notice. The First Department rejected defendant’s notice argument:

It is well settled that a defendant lacks standing to defend the action where it transfers the mortgaged property to a third party during the foreclosure action and the plaintiff waives its right to a deficiency judgment * * *.

… [I]n this case, plaintiff chose not to waive a deficiency judgment and its time to move for a deficiency judgment has not yet expired. Because [defendant] is subject to a potential deficiency judgment and is a debtor on the underlying mortgage, he has an interest in defending the action notwithstanding that he transferred the mortgaged property … and as a result, no longer has the right to redeem the property. Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Vassi, 2026 NY Slip Op 02375, First Dept 4-21-26

Practice Point: If the time for seeking a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure has not passed, a defendant who transferred the subject property to a third party during the foreclosure proceedings still has standing, i.e., defendant has an interest in defending against a deficiency judgment. However, if the plaintiff had waived a deficiency judgment defendant would have lost standing.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S 30.30 (“SPEEDY TRIAL”) MOTION WAS MADE ON THE DAY TRIAL WAS TO BEGIN; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MOTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE STATUTORILY ENTITLED TO “REASONABLE NOTICE” WAS REJECTED; THE TRIAL JUDGE IS FREE TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL, OR PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AND HEAR THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SUBSEQUENTLY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s 30.30 (“speedy trial”) motion was timely made right before trial. The argument that bringing the motion right before trial violated the statutory provision that the motion be made upon “reasonable notice” to the People was rejected. Once the motion is made, the trial court can opt to proceed with the trial and determine the motion subsequently:

… [A] defendant seeking a dismissal based on a speedy trial violation may wish to accumulate as many chargeable days as possible. The facts here reinforce the wisdom of this approach. Defendant made his motion on the date trial was set to begin, eleven months after his arraignment, and alleged 326 days chargeable to the People. That motion contained 9 pages of detailed calculations of days and arguments about why each period should be charged to the People, including the days immediately leading up to the July 23 court date. The People for their part now claim that only 54 of those days were chargeable to them. In other words, every day counts—and many may be contested—in the speedy trial context, and the statute affords a defendant flexibility to decide when best in the time leading up to the start of trial to make a CPL 30.30 (1) (b) motion.

… [T]he People are entitled to a fair opportunity to prepare a response. * * * A court in receipt of such motion has discretion whether to proceed with trial and when to resolve the motion. While proceeding in this way may lead to inefficiencies … , such a result may in certain cases be necessary. The trial court is in the best position to determine when proceeding to trial is warranted to avoid inconvenience to witnesses and unnecessary delay. People v Roper, 2026 NY Slip Op 02365, CtApp 4-21-26

Practice Point: Here a 30.30 (speedy trial) motion was timely despite being made on the day of the trial. The argument that the motion was untimely because the “reasonable notice” provision in the statute was violated was rejected. The court can proceed with the trial and hear the motion later.​

 

/ ,

THE FOURTH TRIAL, AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND WEAPON POSSESSION, TOOK PLACE THREE YEARS AFTER THE LAST OF THREE MISTRIALS; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CHARGES DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, dismissing defendant’s murder and weapon possession charges, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over the three-judge dissent, determined that the three-year delay between the third mistrial and the fourth trial violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial:

… [W]e conclude that the three-year delay to retry defendant a fourth time was unjustified and violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. … “[W]hile the greater the delay, the more likely the harm to the defendant, there is no specific length of time that automatically results in a due process violation … . Here, the delay was lengthy—more than three years and one month between the third and fourth trials, and 36 months between the third trial and when the prosecution declared readiness for the fourth trial. … The delay is even more stark when compared to the dramatically shorter time between the prior trials: six months between the first and second trials and eleven months between the second and third trials.

The “reason for the delay” factor is critical. Thus, in cases involving post-indictment delays, the prosecution’s “good faith will not insulate their decision to delay trial from judicial review on constitutional speedy trial grounds” … . “[O]nce having instituted the prosecution . . ., [the prosecution has] the obligation of advancing it unless there is a reasonable ground for delay” … . By the time of the delay preceding the fourth trial, defendant had already been indicted and tried three times. That indictment remained pending throughout the three-year delay. Accordingly, the prosecution had the obligation of advancing its case in the absence of a reasonable justification … .

A lengthy delay “demands close scrutiny of the other factors, especially the question of why the delay occurred” … . Here, the prosecution’s justifications for the delay lack record support and in any case are not persuasive. The prosecution’s claim that the delay was attributable to its consideration of defense counsel’s request for dismissal after three mistrials cannot, without more, account for the three-year delay. The prosecution did not provide any particular reasons for why its deliberations of whether to retry defendant took so long given its failure to obtain a conviction three times in a row on the murder and weapon possession charges. Nor did the prosecution assert that an internal “changing of the guard” impacted its ability to render a decision on whether to retry the case. People v Woods, 2026 NY Slip Op 02364, CtApp 4-22-26

Practice Point: Here defendant was convicted of murder and weapon possession at his fourth trial, There was a three-year delay between the last mistrial and the fourth trial. The delay violated defendant’s speedy trial rights. The charges were dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXCUSE FOR LATE FILING WAS INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY DEFENDANTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE 11-MONTH DELAY IN FILING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to deem a notice of claim timely served should not have been granted. The excuse for failing to timely file was not sufficient, plaintiff failed show the city defendants had timely knowledge of the claim, and plaintiff did not demonstrate the city defendants were not prejudiced the the 11-month delay in filing the notice:

Plaintiff’s averment that he was unaware of the time limits necessary to file a notice of claim and initially did not retain counsel after being released from custody because he was focusing on the criminal charges against him are not acceptable excuses for failing to file a timely notice of claim … .

Furthermore, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within 90 days of the accrual of the claims or within a reasonable time thereafter … . Plaintiff’s allegations that NYPD officers participated in his false arrest and detention and that they assaulted and battered him do not satisfy plaintiff’s burden of establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts because his allegations do not constitute facts or evidence … . Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants must have records regarding his arrest, detention, and prosecution is also unavailing, as “the alleged existence of records does not suffice to establish actual knowledge” … .

Since plaintiff failed to make an initial showing that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay of about 11 months in filing the notice of claim, the burden never shifted to defendants to make a particularized showing of prejudice to their ability to defend on the merits … . Waddell v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02357, First Dept 4-16-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors a court will consider when determining whether a late notice of claim should be allowed.

 

/ ,

A POLICE OFFICER INTERVIEWED AN EYEWITNESS AND CREATED A “PROBABLE CAUSE I-CARD” FOR THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE ARRESTING OFFICER SAW AND RELIED ON THE I-CARD, WHICH THE “FELLOW OFFICER” RULE REQUIRES FOR A LAWFUL ARREST; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the motion to suppress defendant’s statement should have been granted because the People failed to prove the arrest was based upon the “fellow officer” rule, An officer who interviewed a witness created a probable-cause I-card which was posted to inform other police officers of the probable cause for defendant’s arrest. But the People did not prove the arresting officer relied on the I-card as the basis of the arrest:

Whether the People presented sufficient evidence of a communication under the fellow officer rule is a fact-specific question that requires examination of the record before the suppression court. Here, the People presented no direct evidence that prior to arresting the defendant, the arresting officers were aware of the I-card and relied upon it in effectuating the defendant’s arrest. The arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing, nor did the detective testify about the circumstances of the arrest. * * *

We conclude that the People failed to provide evidence sufficient to show a communication between the officers based on the I-card, and therefore failed to meet their burden at the suppression hearing to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Absent the requisite showing of probable cause, the defendant’s statement must be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. People v Palacios, 2026 NY Slip Op 02360, CtApp 4-16-26

Practice Point: Here the required proof for the application of the “fellow officer” rule was not presented by the People. To prove the arrest was based on a “probable cause I-card” the People were required to show the arresting officer saw the I-card and relied on it. The arresting officer did not testify, so there was a failure of proof requiring suppression of the defendant’s statement.

 

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