You are here: / Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate “Searching Inquiry” Before...

Search Results

/ ,

Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate “Searching Inquiry” Before Allowed Defendant to Represent Himself—New Trial Ordered

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the trial judge did not conduct the requisite “searching inquiry” before allowing the defendant to represent himself.  The opinion includes all of the relevant exchanges between the judge and the defendant and compared those exchanges to the inquiry made in People v Wingate, 17 NY3d 469, where the Court of Appeals determined the inquiry by the trial court to be adequate:

Here, we find that the trial court’s inquiry failed to satisfy [the] “searching inquiry” standard. The court gave nothing more than generalized warnings, and completely failed to advise defendant of the benefits of being represented by counsel. The court’s statements to defendant that it was in his “interest” to continue with counsel; that “[g];enerally, [self-representation]; is a very bad idea”; and that there were “all kinds of dangers in doing this,” its sole example being that defendant would have to give the opening statement himself, failed to insure that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel [had]; been impressed on . . . defendant” … . The court also failed to advise defendant about the “importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Because we find that the court did not make the requisite searching inquiry, we reverse the judgment convicting defendant and remand for a new trial.  People v Cole, 2014 NY Slip Op 04076, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

/ , , ,

Writing Which Omitted Certain Crucial Terms Was an “Agreement to Agree,” Not an Enforceable Real Estate Sales Contract

The First Department determined that a writing [the September 14 letter] which included some terms of the sale of church property for $15 million constituted an “agreement to agree” and not an enforceable real estate sales contract.  The writing identified the parties, the property, the amount of the downpayment and the price of the property.  At some point after the writing was signed, the defendant property owner told the plaintiff it was negotiating the sale of the property to another and, if the plaintiff wanted to buy, the price would be $17.5 million.  The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract and specific performance.  In finding the writing was not an enforceable real estate sales contract, the court noted that several crucial terms were missing, including the failure to mention the required court-approval of the sale of church property pursuant to the not-for-profit corporation law, and the failure to include details of the escrow agreement:

…[W]e agree with defendant that the September 14 letter did not contain all of the material terms which one would reasonably have expected to be included under the circumstances, rendering the September 14 letter unenforceable. For example, while the September 14 letter contemplated that the down payment would be held in escrow, it failed to identify who the escrow agent would be and left to future negotiations “a reasonably acceptable escrow agreement.” Since “[n];o contract for the sale of real property can be created when a material element of the contemplated bargain has been left for further negotiations,” …, and the details of an escrow arrangement are certainly material, this alone warranted the motion court’s conclusion that the letter was not a contract.

Further, the contemplated transaction was unique, insofar as it was contingent on approval by the court and the Attorney General. While we do not question that defendant was entitled to agree to a sale of the property prior to seeking such approval …, one would expect that an agreement would have contained such material terms as defendant’s duty to seek approval in a diligent manner, and the consequences of a failure to secure such approval. Indeed, it has been held that the contingency created by a condominium association’s right of first refusal is material to an agreement to sell an individual condominium apartment … .  Argent Acquisitions LLC v First Church of Religious Science, 2014 NY Slip Op 04048, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

/

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Third Department determined County Court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea without a hearing.  The court was aware defendant was under medication which was affecting her ability to think at the time she entered the plea:

…[A]n evidentiary hearing is … required upon a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “[w];here the record raises legitimate questions as to whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered into” … . County Court was well aware that defendant was being medicated for longstanding mental health issues, and was further on painkillers due to a recent injury. When she appeared before County Court …, defendant stated that her psychological issues were “out of control” and that she could not think. She further advised County Court that the painkillers she was taking left her unable to attend to her personal needs without assistance. County Court then adjourned the case pending trial, only to have defendant reappear a short time later and plead guilty. People v Bass, 2014 NY Slip Op 04079, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Court Is Not Required to Notify Defendant of His Right to Contest the Constitutionality of His Prior Conviction Before Sentencing Defendant as a Second Felony Offender

The Third Department noted that the sentencing court was not required to notify defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of his prior conviction before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

” ‘County Court was not obligated to expressly advise defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of the prior conviction'” … . Here, the record reveals that defendant was provided with the prior felony information before sentencing and, while represented by counsel during sentencing, declined to deny or controvert any of the allegations in the information. Accordingly, County Court substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (3), and defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender … . People v Wilkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04083, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Taking a Position Adverse to Client’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Third Department noted that counsel may not take a position adverse to the client’s pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea.  To do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel:

We agree with defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as his new counsel took a position adverse to his with regard to the motion to withdraw his plea. “While defense counsel is not required to support a pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea, counsel ‘may not take a position . . . that is adverse to the defendant'” … . Although defendant was properly permitted to obtain a new attorney, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when such counsel “affirmatively undermined arguments [that defendant]; wished the court to review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for reconsideration of defendant’s motion, for which he must be represented by new counsel. People v Russ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith in Negotiations Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Did Not State a Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the parties failure to come to an agreement did not give rise to a cause of action.  The negotiations, pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, had come to an impasse which, the Court of Appeals concluded, was not actionable:

It is true, as the concurring Justices in the Appellate Division pointed out, that courts normally give a generous reading to pleadings that are attacked as insufficient on their face. But it is not too much to ask that a pleading filed after more than a decade of back and forth between the parties contain some specific facts supporting the claim of bad faith — not just the bald conclusions, contradicted by the only relevant document referred to, that [defendant] insisted “on terms that conflicted with the Settlement Agreement” and “made a definite and final communication” of its intent to violate its obligations. IDT Corp v Tyco Group SARI, 2014 NY Slip Op 04044, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/

Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis

The Third Department determined County Court should not have determined a verdict was repugnant and sent the jury back for further deliberations.  The Third Department vacated the defendant's conviction on the relevant count.  In the course of the decision the Third Department explained the nature of a repugnant verdict, noting that the proof at trial plays no part in the analysis:

Contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury's initial verdict — convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and acquitting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — was not repugnant. “[A]; verdict as to a particular count shall be set aside [as repugnant]; only when it is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury” … . In assessing a repugnancy claim, “we must review the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury without regard to the proof that was actually presented at trial. Thus, [i];f there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support. . . . In this context, the apparently illogical nature of the verdict — as opposed to its impossibility — is viewed as a mistake, compromise or the exercise of mercy by the jury, none of which undermine[s]; a verdict as a matter of law” … .

Here, upon reviewing the elements of the subject offenses, it is readily apparent that the jury's verdict was not repugnant. Criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree requires proof that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold a narcotic drug (see Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), whereas criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree requires only, insofar as is relevant here, that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a narcotic drug with intent to sell it (see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Notably, a “[d];efendant's acquittal on the [sale count]; does not negate the elements of the [possession count], for a person can possess and intend to sell a narcotic drug, but not actually accomplish a sale” … . Defendant's argument to the contrary is predicated upon the specific proof adduced at trial, which — the Court of Appeals has instructed — is to play no role in our analysis of a repugnancy claim … . As the jury's initial verdict was not repugnant, County Court should have denied defendant's motion, accepted the jury's verdict and adjourned the matter for sentencing. Instead, County Court implicitly granted defendant's motion, devised a special verdict sheet and directed the jury to resume deliberations. People v Kramer, 2014 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Prosecution by Misdemeanor Information Waived by Defense Counsel; Facts Alleged In Support of the Obstruction of Governmental Administration Charge Were Sufficient to Meet Requirements of a Misdemeanor Complaint

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant had waived his right to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor information and the misdemeanor complaint to which he pled guilty sufficiently alleged the obstruction of governmental administration.  Defense counsel's statement “so waived” was deemed adequate to waive prosecution by information.  The misdemeanor complaint alleged that defendant stood behind a police vehicle after slamming the trunk shut. Those allegations were deemed sufficient to allege defendant intended to prevent the officer from patrolling the area. The dissent argued those factual allegations were insufficient to inform defendant of the nature of the charge:

“A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” … . Under the CPL, a court must use one of two instruments to take jurisdiction over a defendant accused of a misdemeanor: a misdemeanor complaint or a misdemeanor information. A misdemeanor complaint authorizes jurisdiction over an accused, and can commence a criminal action and allow the state to jail the defendant for up to five days, but it cannot serve as a basis for prosecution, unless the defendant waives prosecution by information (see CPL 100.10 [4]; 120.20 [1]; [a]; 170.65 [1], [3]; 170.70…). Concomitantly, unless waived, a valid information is a jurisdictional requirement for a misdemeanor prosecution (see CPL 100.10 [4]…).

A misdemeanor information must set forth “nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” … . We have called this “the prima facie case requirement” (Kalin, 12 NY3d at 229). An information serves the same role in a misdemeanor prosecution as a grand jury indictment does in a felony case: it ensures that a legally sufficient case can be made against the defendant … . A misdemeanor complaint, in comparison, need only set forth facts that establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense … .

A defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive prosecution by misdemeanor information, as demonstrated by an affirmative act … . When the defendant waives prosecution by information, he or she declines the protection of the statute, and the accusatory instrument must only satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see CPL 170.65 [1], [3]…). People v Dumay, 2014 NY Slip Op 04038, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/

Parole Violators May Apply for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—County Court Properly Denied the Application Based Upon the Nature of Defendant’s Convictions and Serious Prison Infractions

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act, the Third Department noted that the fact that defendant violated parole did not prevent him from applying for resentencing:

While parole violators may indeed apply for resentencing, denial of such an application may be warranted if they “have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences” … . Defendant has a violent criminal history and, indeed, his most recent criminal conviction and parole violation stem from his possession of a defaced and loaded handgun. The record further reveals that defendant has a lengthy record of serious prison disciplinary infractions, many of them involving violence. We thus find that, notwithstanding defendant’s positive programming achievements while incarcerated, “County Court properly exercised its discretion in finding that substantial justice would not be served by resentencing” him … . People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04087, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/

Error in Grand Jury Presentation Did Not Raise a Question of Prejudice Sufficient to Justify Dismissal of the Indictment

The Court of Appeals determined the grand jury proceedings were not rendered invalid by the presentation of the videotaped testimony of the child-victim who had not been administered an oath.  After realizing the oath had been omitted, the prosecutor presented the testimony to the grand jury again, this time preceded by the oath.  The Court of Appeals found the defendant had not established the possibility of prejudice:

The People do not dispute that an oath should have been administered to Jane during the first testimonial recording (see e.g. CPL 60.20 [2]; CPL 190.32 [5]…). On these facts, however, the error does not meet the “very precise and very high” statutory standard of impairment for grand jury proceedings … . The lack of an oath was not the product of a nefarious design to deliberately cause unfairness to defendant. Rather, it was an oversight that the People sought to correct by securing judicial permission to record a second interview in which Jane swore to be honest and verified the truth of her prior statements. The grand jury then watched the second video and was instructed that the recording was made because Jane had not taken an oath during her first examination. Based on these circumstances, defendant has not established a possibility of prejudice justifying the exceptional remedy of dismissal of the indictment… .  People v Wisdom, 2014 NY Slip Op 04040, CtApp 6-5-14

 

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