You are here: / THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE PEOPLE PROVIDED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE PEOPLE PROVIDED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK JURORS; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE HANDCUFFED DEFENDANT’S SHOW-UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court’s Batson and suppression rulings, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the trial court’s rulings (1) the People demonstrated race-neutral reasons for striking two Black jurors and (2) the show-up identification of the defendant, who was handcuffed, was proper:

Overall, C.C.’s responses gave rise to a reasonable inference that: (1) he viewed the arrest of his cousin for marijuana possession as a crime against his cousin; (2) he viewed the arrest of his cousin as a “raid” by police; and (3) his negative feelings towards police could affect his view of police witnesses in the case, regardless of any contradictory assurances he might have given. These inferences are patently reasonable and the trial court’s determination that the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the People in support of their peremptory strike of C.C. were credible and non-pretextual finds ample support in the record … . * * *

The People expressed concern that K.C.’s job duties would cause her to be inappropriately sympathetic to defendant. K.C.’s job involved determining whether juvenile offenders would be entitled to intake diversion, or face prosecution, and she was previously employed as a caseworker. We have previously recognized that a party may permissibly strike a juror “who works in a certain field . . . because that party believes—for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case—that such individual may have a more sympathetic attitude or view toward the opposing party” … . * * *

Although this Court has stated that a showup procedure in which a suspect is handcuffed and in the presence of police is “suggestive and not preferred” and “presses judicial tolerance to its limits” … , we have concluded that, such a showup is “reasonable under the circumstances” when it is conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime … . When a showup is done as part of “one unbroken chain of events—crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension and identifications” such a procedure is acceptable … . As we have recognized, ” ‘prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant’s arrest at or near the crime scene have been generally allowed” ,,, . Moreover, “[w]hether a crime scene showup is unduly suggestive is a mixed question of law and fact. Thus, if record evidence supports the determination below, this Court’s review is at an end” …. . People v Wright, 2024 NY Slip Op 03320, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: A show-up identification procedure in close geographical and temporal proximity to the crime can be proper, even when the defendant is handcuffed.

 

/ , ,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED WHILE HIS PAROLE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE; DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS THEN SEARCHED AND HEROIN WAS FOUND; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED UNDER THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD, NOT THE “RIGHT TO INQUIRE” STANDARD APPLIED BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, remitting the case for a determination of the suppression motion under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined there was a question whether the defendant was illegally detained after a valid traffic stop to allow investigation of a possible parole violation. The parole officer was called to the scene, the defendant’s car was searched, and heroin was found:

The proper standard for detaining an individual beyond “the time reasonably required” to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion … . Given that a traffic stop is a “limited seizure” of the occupants of a vehicle, “[f]or a traffic stop to pass constitutional muster, the officer’s action in stopping the vehicle must be justified at its inception and the seizure must be reasonably related in scope, including its length, to the circumstances which justified the detention in the first instance” … . A “continued involuntary detention of [a] defendant . . . constitute[s] a seizure in violation of their constitutional rights, unless circumstances coming to [the officer’s] attention following the initial stop furnishe[s] . . . reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity” … . Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation . . . become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a ticket for the violation” … . In this vein, although that “mission” encompasses ” ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop,’ ” it does not include additional measures designed to detect evidence of criminality … . Thus, an otherwise lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged “absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual” … .

… [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding that the traffic stop was justified at its inception, based upon the police officer’s observation that defendant committed a traffic infraction … . However, the courts below evaluated whether the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required for its completion under the founded suspicion standard applicable to the common law right to inquire … , a lesser standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary to prolong a traffic stop. As a result, remittal is necessary to allow for consideration of this issue under the proper standard. People v Thomas, 2024 NY Slip Op 03319, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: After a valid traffic stop, the question whether defendant was properly detained to allow inquiry into suspected crimes unrelated to the traffic infraction is analyzed under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, not the lesser “right to inquire” standard.

 

/ , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF CAPACITY TO COMMIT ARSON WAS “1400 DAYS LATE,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE LATE NOTICE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept late notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense to the arson charge. The defendant had been evaluated and treated for mental illness since childhood. When a new attorney was assigned to the defense, the notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence was served “1400 days late.” The defense sought to introduce expert testimony to demonstrate defendant did not have the capacity to commit arson at the time of the offense:

We … hold that the trial court’s application of CPL 250.10 precluding Mr. Sidbury’s [defendant’s] psychiatric defense was an abuse of discretion. We have been clear that the governing principle animating CPL 250.10 is “procedural fairness and orderliness” with the intention of “eliminating the element of surprise” for the prosecution … . The statute formulates a procedure for defendants to serve notice of their intent to present psychiatric evidence that is “prepared and presented manageably and efficiently,” such that it allows for “proper notification, adversarial examination, and preclusion when appropriate” … . * * *

Although the statute provides for service of the notice within 30 days of the defendant’s not-guilty plea, the court has discretion to permit service of a late notice “[i]n the interest of justice and for good cause shown” … . Late notice is permissible “at any time prior to the close of evidence”—including after trial has commenced  … .

The decision to permit late notice is within the discretion of the trial court … . That discretion, however, is “not absolute,” because “[e]xclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction for a defendant’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement implicates a defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in [their] own defense” … . Instead, the trial court must “weigh [the defendant’s constitutional] right against the resultant prejudice to the People from the belated notice” … . People v Sidbury, 2024 NY Slip Op 03318, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Although service of notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense should be made within 30 days of the not-guilty plea, the court has the discretion to accept late notice at any time prior to the close of evidence (because the constitutional right to present a defense is at stake).

 

/ ,

WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined CPLR 308(2) was not violated by mailing the foreclosure summons and complaint to defendant in an envelope which indicated the contents were litigation-related. Although the address to which the documents were mailed was defendant’s business address, it also served has his residential address. The envelope-restrictions only apply to a mailing to a business address. In a matter of first impression, the First Department held the residential-address mailing-rules, not the business-address mailing restrictions, applied and CPLR 308(2) was not violated:

Defendant’s argument that where a dual purpose exists the business mailing restrictions prohibiting litigation-related markings on the envelope take precedence over the residential mailing conditions is untenable. This position would improperly render meaningless one provision in favor of the other for no apparent reason other than to benefit one side over the other … . … [A] close reading of CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements reveals an alternative construction that would resolve this interesting dilemma … . The placement of the phrase “last known residence” before the phrase “actual place of business” signals the Legislature’s clear intent to deem mailing to a defendant’s residence to be primary over a place of business. Indeed, the legislative history for the 1987 amendment to CPLR 308(2) strongly supports this reasoning … . The amendment providing for mailing to a place of business was to ameliorate the inability to locate a defendant’s residence. Thus, mailing to a residential address is primary over a mailing to a place of business, an option that was intended to be secondary in effectuating service of process. Based on the foregoing, where a defendant’s address is both residential and a place of business, the address may be deemed as a residential one in the affidavit of service, permitting a mailing in accordance with CPLR 308(2)’s residential mailing requirements. Under these circumstances, the mailing … did not violate CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements…. . AMK Capital Corp. v Plotch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03324, First Dept 6-18-24

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s mailing address is both a business address and a residential address, the CPLR 308(2) “business address” rule, i.e., the envelope must not indicate the contents are litigation-related, does not apply.

 

/ , ,

THE BURGLARY COUNT CHARGED THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE VICTIM’S APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “HOLD A KNIFE TO THE VICTIM’S THROAT;” THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ONLY THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “COMMIT A CRIME;” DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION TAILORED TO MATCH THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s burglary conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, determined defense counsel should have insisted on a jury instruction which reflected the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment alleged defendant entered the victim’s apartment with the intent to hold a knife to the victim’s throat. The jury was instructed that it need only find defendant unlawfully entered and remained in the victim’s apartment with the intent “to commit a crime” with no mention of holding a knife to the victim’s throat. At trial whether defendant possessed a knife was contested and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing:

In its charge to the jury, County Court made no mention of the People’s theory of the crime as limited by the indictment. The court charged, with respect to the intent element, that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered or remained in the building “with the intent to commit a crime inside the building,” without specifying the intended crime. Defense counsel did not seek a tailored instruction limited to the theory in the indictment.

“There is no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular crime was intended,” to secure a conviction for burglary … . However, “[i]f the People . . . expressly limit[ ] their theory of the ‘intent to commit a crime therein’ element to a particular crime, then they . . . have . . . to prove that the defendant intended to commit that crime” … .

Here, defense counsel failed to seek an appropriately tailored instruction to the jury on burglary in the second degree or object to the burglary charge given. Defense counsel thereby permitted the jury to convict defendant upon a theory of the intent element that was not set forth in the indictment … . People v Mcclendon, 2024 NY Slip Op 03260, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: If the burglary count in the indictment charges that defendant unlawfully entered the victim’s apartment to “hold a knife to the victim’s throat,” the jury instruction should match the language in the indictment. Here the jury was instructed it need only find that defendant entered the apartment “to commit a crime” with no mention of a knife. Whether there was a knife was contested at trial and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing. Under those facts, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction which matched the knife-related crime charged in the indictment.

 

/ , ,

OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS RE: LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling on whether the People complied with their discovery obligations, over a two-justice dissent, noted that the People cannot use a “screening panel” to review law enforcement disciplinary records:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds (see CPL 30.30). In particular, he contends that the People’s failure to disclose existing disciplinary records of potential law enforcement witnesses for use as impeachment materials … rendered any certificate of compliance (COC) filed pursuant to CPL 245.50 improper and thereby rendered any declaration of trial readiness made pursuant to CPL 30.30 illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock. As the Court of Appeals recently stated in People v Bay, “the key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed is whether the prosecution has ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” … . Due diligence “is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[W]hether the People made reasonable efforts sufficient to satisfy CPL article 245 is fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented” … . “[C]ourts should generally consider, among other things, the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor’s office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding, the complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People’s response when apprised of any missing discovery” … . Although the statute does not require a ” ‘perfect prosecutor,’ ” the Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s good faith, while required, “is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence” … . People v Sumler, 2024 NY Slip Op 03307, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: A “screening panel” cannot be used to determined what law enforcement disciplinary records must be supplied to the defense in discovery.

Practice Point: The People’s failure to comply with discovery obligations may render the certificate of compliance improper and the ready-for-trial announcement illusory, warranting dismissal on speedy trial grounds.

 

/ , ,

THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, noted that a judge’s failure to rule on a trial order of dismissal motion does not constitute a denial of the motion. Therefore an appellate court cannot rule on the evidentiary issue raised in the motion and must send the matter back for a ruling:

The failure of a trial court to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal cannot be deemed a denial of that motion, and thus we must hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Because the failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial of the motion an appellate court cannot address the issue and must remit for a ruling by the trial court.

 

/ , ,

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting both the direct testimony and the cross-examination on a specific topic. The judge only provided the direct testimony and erroneously told the jury the cross-examination did not address the topic:

… [T]he jury submitted a note requesting, inter alia, a readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.” The court responded to the jury’s request by reading back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. The court did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident, including questions about the victim’s earlier statement to the police describing a conversation that she had with defendant outside the car and questions regarding her statement to the police on the day of the incident that the driver of a car attempted to pull her into the car through the window. The court also instructed the jury that only direct examination included questions with respect to the victim being inside the car and, despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident. A meaningful response to a request for a readback of testimony “is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back … . People v Dortch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03283, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the jury requested a readback of the direct and cross on a specific topic. The judge provided only the direct which did not constitute a meaningful response to the jury note. New trial ordered.

 

/ ,

ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS TO A RECREATIONAL EASEMENT ARE NECESSARY PARTIES BUT NOT ALL WERE INCLUDED AS PLAINTIFFS; ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED, THE ACTION MAY BE RECOMMENCED WITH ALL THE PROPER PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined all the necessary parties were not included in this suit seeking a declaration of the rights of property owners with respect to a recreational easement:

CPLR 1001 (a) provides, in relevant part, that all “[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants.” It is well established that “[t]he absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . In an action seeking to determine the extent of a recreational easement, the owners of all parcels of land burdened or benefitted by the easement are necessary parties because there is a potential that their real property rights will be affected by the outcome of the litigation … . Inasmuch as owners of real property who are not currently named as parties may be affected by the outcome of litigation concerning the subject parcel, we reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint without prejudice (see CPLR 1003). Plaintiffs are thus “not precluded from recommencing the action in the proper manner naming all necessary parties” … . Follett v Dumond, 2024 NY Slip Op 03272, Fourth Dept 6-4-24

Practice Point: All property owners who may be affected by a declaration of rights to a recreational easement are necessary parties.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint, even though the note of issue and certificate of readiness had been filed. Defendant was unable to show any prejudice from the proposed amendment. The case was brought as a slip and fall which had been dismissed because plaintiff’s decedent did not identify the cause of the fall. Plaintiff sought to add a cause of action for negligent discharge from the hospital where the slip and fall occurred, which sounds in medical malpractice:

While “[i]t is well settled that [l]eave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” … , that policy does not apply “on the eve of trial,” and once a case has been certified ready for trial “there is a heavy burden on [a] plaintiff to show extraordinary circumstances to justify amendment by submitting affidavits which set forth the recent change of circumstances justifying the amendment and otherwise giving an adequate explanation for the delay” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the delay, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying the cross-motion for leave to amend the amended complaint to add a medical malpractice cause of action. Nevertheless, because defendant failed to establish any prejudice that would result from plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend, if further discovery is conducted, we modify the order in the exercise of our discretion by granting plaintiff leave to amend his amended complaint to assert a cause of action for the allegedly negligent discharge of decedent from defendant’s facility, and, further, striking the note of issue and certificate of readiness to allow for additional discovery … . Chapman v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the post-note-of-issue motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action requiring further discovery was granted because the defendant was unable to demonstrate any prejudice.

 

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