The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the sentencing court properly rejected youthful-offender status for the defendant. People v Rivera, 2023 NY Slip Op 05967, CtApp 11-21-23
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a single-judge dissent and a separate two-judge dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the roadblock vehicle-stop procedure was valid and the search based upon an odor of marijuana was valid. The search would not have been valid after the Mariihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was enacted in 2021. The court refused to apply the MRTA retroactively. Judge Rivera’s dissenting opinion, argued defendant’s argument against the ban on felons obtaining gun licenses had merit and the matter should have been sent back to create a record. Judge Halligan’s dissent argued the constitutionality of the roadblock was not demonstrated. People v Pastrana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05966, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: The Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which under certain circumstances (which were present in this case) prohibits a search based upon the odor of marijuana, does not apply retroactively.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, answering a question from the Second Circuit, determined the failure to give notice of the assignment of the life insurance policy precluded the assignee from suing the insurer:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked us to determine whether, where a life insurance policy provides that “assignment will be effective upon Notice” in writing to the insurer, the failure to provide such written notice voids the assignment so that the purported assignee does not have contractual standing to bring a claim under the Policy … . … [W]e reformulate the question as follows:
Where a life insurance policy provides that ‘assignment will be effective upon notice’ in writing to the insurer, does the failure to provide such written notice deprive the purported assignee of contractual standing to bring a claim under the Policy against the insurer?
We answer the reformulated question in the affirmative. Brettler v Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.2023 NY Slip Op 05958, CtApp 11-20-23
Practice Point: Here the life insurance policy required written notice to the insurer of any assignment of the policy. The failure to provide notice precluded the assignee from bringing a claim under the policy against the insurer.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined the admission of two autopsy reports through an expert witness who did not perform the autopsies, as well as the witness’s testimony, violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeals overruled its decision in Frycinet (11 NY3d at 39) which concluded autopsy reports were not “testimonial” and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. The erroneous admission of the evidence here, however, was deemed harmless by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals:
Pursuant to [the] Confrontation Clause, a witness’s out-of-court “testimonial” statement may only be admitted for its truth where the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable for trial, where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68 [2004]). …
This Court had occasion to consider the impact of Crawford and its progeny on the admission of autopsy reports in Freycinet, where it held that a redacted autopsy report was not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause (11 NY3d at 39). In reaching this conclusion, the Court evaluated four purported “indicia of testimoniality”: (1) “the extent to which the entity conducting the procedure is an arm of law enforcement”; (2) “whether the contents of the report are a contemporaneous record of objective facts”; (3) “whether a pro-law-enforcement bias is likely to influence the contents of the report”; and (4) “whether the report’s contents are directly accusatory in the sense that they explicitly link the defendant to the crime” … . All four factors, the Court concluded, weighed in the People’s favor and thus, the autopsy report at issue was not testimonial … . * * *
We now hold that Freycinet should no longer be followed because it is inconsistent with the demands of the Confrontation Clause as articulated more recently by the Supreme Court. * * *
… [I]t is the People’s obligation to establish that their testifying experts, who did not perform or observe the relevant autopsy, reached their conclusions themselves based upon a review of the proper materials rather than the conclusions of the performing examiner. People v Ortega, 2023 NY Slip Op 05956, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: Autopsy reports are testimonial in nature and must be admitted in evidence through an expert who participated in the autopsies. The erroneous admission of the testimonial evidence was deemed harmless here, however.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the police were only given permission to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence, not the apartment where defendant was seized:
Well before daybreak, four armed officers knocked repeatedly on the exterior door and window of a two-family residence. Someone responded by coming to the exterior door and opening it. The officers identified themselves as police, the person moved aside, and the officers entered the vestibule. Through the doorway of the downstairs apartment, they saw the person they wished to arrest, entered that apartment, and arrested him. The question before us is whether the suppression court should have granted Mr. Cuencas’s [defendant’s] motion to suppress for lack of consent for police to enter the apartment. * * *
… [T]he officers never sought consent to enter Mr. Cuencas’s apartment — only to enter the common vestibule to speak the person who answered the exterior door. The record shows that there were separate doors inside the vestibule, one for each of the two apartments in the building, each bearing a lock, and that each door was open. When the People asked Detective Fogelman to describe how he perceived the building upon his arrival at 5:30 AM, he testified that “It may have had two apartments, an upstairs and a downstairs.” Detective Fogelman asked for consent to enter through the exterior door into the vestibule, not into either of the two apartments, and it is not disputed that Mr. Cuencas’s apartment had a door separating it from the vestibule. People v Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: The person who answered the door allowed the police to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence. But consent to enter the vestibule did not constitute consent to enter the first-floor apartment where defendant was seized. The suppression motion should have been granted.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the New York State Tax Tribunal and the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, the president and majority shareholder of a construction company, was the person responsible for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes:
… [P]etitioner and the dissenters argue that the Tribunal employed an incorrect legal test in making its determination, under Tax Law § 685 (g), that petitioner was a person responsible for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes on behalf of New England Construction Company, Inc. (NECC), a corporation of which petitioner was president and the majority shareholder, and on behalf of which petitioner had repeatedly held himself out as being responsible for payment of taxes. We conclude that the Tribunal committed no such error. Rather, in resolving the question before it, the Tribunal properly considered whether petitioner had the actual authority and effective power to pay the withholding taxes and, thus, was a “responsible person” under section 685. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the Tribunal’s determination that petitioner willfully failed to pay the withholding taxes. * * *
Under Tax Law § 685 (g), a person may be held liable for the withholding taxes of a corporation if the person is “required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over the tax imposed” and “willfully fails to collect such tax or . . . willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat the tax or the payment thereof.” … [S]ection 685 (g) essentially provides that “a person responsible for collecting and paying taxes withheld from employees’ wages is liable for a 100% civil penalty if [that person] willfully fails to collect and pay over the tax” … . Such a responsible person includes “an officer or employee of a corporation . . . who . . . is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs” … . Under the broad terms of this definition, more than one person can be a responsible person under Tax Law § 685 … . Because section 685 (g) was modeled after 26 USC § 6672 (a) … , the terms in the former are to be interpreted in conformity with the latter unless a different meaning is clearly required … . Matter of Black v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2023 NY Slip Op 05961, CtApp, 11-20-23
Practice Point: Tax Law 685 makes the “person responsible” for the collection and payment of employee withholding taxes civilly liable for failure to pay the tax.
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which criminalizes the use of restraints which restrict air or blood flow is valid:
We are asked to determine whether section 10-181 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which makes criminal the use of certain restraints by police officers during an arrest, violates the New York Constitution on either preemption or due process grounds. Because section 10-181 does not conflict with state law or regulate in a field in which the state has expressly or impliedly precluded local legislation, it is a permissible exercise of local lawmaking authority. The language of the section also provides fair notice of the conduct prohibited and is sufficiently definite to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and is therefore not void for vagueness.
In July 2020, New York City Administrative Code § 10-181 became law, making it a misdemeanor offense for any “person” to “restrain an individual in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-181 [a], [b]).
… [T]he enactment of section 10-181 was spurred, in large part, by the widely publicized deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd following the use of force by police officers during their arrests … . Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of New York, Inc. v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05960, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: A NYC Administrative Code provision criminalizing restraints which restrict blood or air flow is valid and enforceable.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Egan, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Local Law creating a Police Accountability Board (PAB) with the power to discipline police officers was invalid because the law conflicted with the union’s (the Locust Club’s) collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the union had never agreed to the change:
Since the 1980s, the collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) in place between the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. (hereinafter the Locust Club), the union representing police officers in the City, has governed the procedure for disciplining police officers. In 2019, the Council of the City of Rochester adopted, the Mayor of the City of Rochester signed, and voters approved via referendum, Local Law No. 2, which created the Police Accountability Board (hereinafter PAB), a body of nine City residents whose powers included the exclusive authority to “investigate and make determinations respecting” any police officer accused of misconduct. That authority included the power to conduct a hearing on the alleged misconduct and to impose disciplinary sanctions, up to and including dismissal, if the officer were found guilty. The City’s police chief was free to impose additional punishment upon that officer, but was obliged at a minimum to implement the sanction determined by the PAB.
There is no dispute that the disciplinary procedures set forth in Local Law No. 2 deviated in significant respects from the agreed-upon procedures set forth in the CBA then in effect and that they were not agreed to by the Locust Club. The Locust Club and others commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 2 and, in particular, its transfer of police disciplinary authority to the PAB. Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition in part and held, among other things, that Local Law No. 2 was invalid to the extent that it transferred that authority. Upon the City Council’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed … . The Appellate Division held that the City was obliged to negotiate with the Locust Club on the issue of police discipline because in 1985 it had repealed the provision of its charter vesting a local official in charge of the police force with unilateral authority over police discipline and that the City’s effort to revive that authority in Local Law No. 2 necessarily failed under the Municipal Home Rule Law because it was inconsistent with a general law, namely, “the Taylor Law’s mandate of collective bargaining for police discipline” … . Matter of Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. v City of Rochester, 2023 NY Slip Op 05959, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: The Local Law creating the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and granting the PAB the power to discipline police officers conflicted with disciplinary provisions in the police union’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Because the union never agreed to the transfer of disciplinary powers to the PAB, the Local Law was deemed invalid.
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not demonstrate the witness through whom the DNA evidence was admitted had the necessary involvement in the DNA analysis:
We have held that “a single analyst” may testify so long as it is “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data, as opposed to a testifying analyst functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . Accordingly, testimony from an analyst is sufficient where the witness has engaged in ” ‘the final-level DNA analysis, reviewed the results of the preliminary evidence processing conducted by colleagues, produced the relevant DNA profiles, and expressed her expert opinion’ ” as to the DNA match … . …
… [T]he testifying analyst must have either participated in or directly supervised this “final” step that generates the DNA profile, or must conduct an “independent analysis” of the data used to do so in a manner that enables replication of the determinations made at that stage in order to verify the profile …. The record here fails to establish that the testifying analyst had the requisite involvement with either of the DNA profiles. People v Jordan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05957, CtApp 11-21-23
Practice Point: Here the People did not demonstrate the witness testifying about defendant’s DNA profile participated in the final stage of the DNA analysis or conducted an independent analysis using only the raw data. Therefore the analysist’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint which alleged the town negligently failed to maintain a sewer main causing sewage to backflow into plaintiffs’ home did not state a cause of action for trespass, which requires an intentional act:
Among other elements, a claim for trespass requires “an intentional entry” … . Intent, in this context, “is defined as intending the act which produces the unlawful intrusion, where the intrusion is an immediate or inevitable consequence of that act” … . Here, accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true … , we conclude that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action for trespass inasmuch as it failed to allege an intentional entry onto plaintiffs’ property … . Drake v Village of Lima, 2023 NY Slip Op 05833, Fourth Dept 11-17-23
Practice Point: Here the trespass cause of action was based upon the backflow of sewage into plaintiffs’ home allegedly caused by the negligent maintenance of a sewer main. Trespass requires an “Intentional entry” which was not alleged here.
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy