The Fourth Department dismissed one count of an indictment finding the indictment “multiplicitous” (charging a single offense in more than one count). The error was not preserved but the Court reviewed the issue “in the interest of justice.” People vs Quinn, 1131, KA 11-00278 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
A valid waiver of the right to appeal did not preclude defendant from challenging the severity of his sentence where the sentencing court did not inform the defendant of the maximum term of incarceration and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver. People vs Scott, 107, KA 11-01655 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
The Fourth Department determined a police officer had the right to frisk the passengers in a lawfully stopped car to the extent necessary to protect his safety because he was acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his own safety. Before the defendant got into the car which was stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer had observed the defendant “engage in a number of ‘handshakes’ “which the officer determined were either hand to hand drug sales or “gang signals.” When the car was stopped the officer saw the defendant either take something out of or put something into his pocket. People vs Daniels, 9, KA 09-287 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
DeBour, vehicle stop, street stops, search
In an appeal by the People, the Fourth Department determined the suppression motion should not have been granted for the reasons relied on by the suppression court. The Fourth Department found that the officers who approached two men and asked the non-threatening question “What’s up guys” had “an objective credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality” for doing so. The men were seen walking from a private driveway toward a car in a public parking lot for a recreation area. The men were dressed “pretty heavy” for the mid-70-degree weather, unlike the bikers and hikers who use the park. And there had been a number of daytime burglaries in the area. People vs Johnston, 8, KA 12-01414 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
DeBour, street stops
A police officer approached the defendant’s car which was illegally parked. The officer asked the defendant “What’s going on” and the defendant answered that he was seeking a prostitute. The officer asked if there was anything in the car he “should be aware of” and then asked for and received permission to search the car. A gun was found. Defendant eventually pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. The Fourth Department determined the search was illegal and suppressed the evidence seized in the search. The Court determined the officer’s question whether there was anything in the car he should be aware of, a question that rose to the level of “a common-law inquiry under De Bour,” was not based on a “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” People vs Carr, 3, KA 08-02222 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
DeBour, street stops
No judgment can be entered based upon inconsistent interrogatory answers (by the jury) and a general verdict. The only remedy is for the trial judge to instruct the jury to keep deliberating or order a new trial (CPLR 4111 (c)). Applebee vs County of Cayuga, 1388, CA 11-02090 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
In reversing an “amended judgment” in which the judge purported to correct an error in the calculation of child support and maintenance arrears, the Fourth Department noted: “a court has no power to reduce or increase the amount of a judgment when there is no clerical error…”. Meenan vs Meenan, 1493, CA12-01885 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, the Fourth Department determined that a teacher, for seniority purposes, deserved credit for the entire period during which she taught full-time, no matter how the type of employment was labeled (per diem, substitute, probationary, etc.). Although the teacher technically was asked to “resign” until she passed a particular exam, the fact that she continued to work full-time under in a different employee-category was determinative. Matter of Alessi vs Board of Education, Wilson School District, et al, 1380, CA 12-0119 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13
The prosecutor’s failure to get the court’s permission to re-submit charges to a second grand jury was a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the indictment after a guilty plea. The first grand jury took “no affirmative action” on drug charges before them. There were not enough votes to indict on or dismiss the charges. The prosecutor then submitted the drug charges to a second grand jury which voted to indict. The First Department noted: “Even without a formal grand jury vote, a charge can be deemed “dismissed” within the meaning of CPL 190.75(3) if the prosecutor “prematurely takes the charge away from the grand jury…”. People vs Smith, 7310, 135/10, 801/10 First Dept. 2-7-13
The First Department determined an intentional assault would not sever the causal connection between injury to the plaintiff and the bar’s serving alcohol to a person alleged to have been visibly intoxicated, as well as the bar’s alleged failure to provide proper security. Carver vs P.J. Carney’s, 9216, 103191/10 First Dept. 2-7-13
Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy