You are here: / DEFENDANT WAS 16 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND WAS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS 16 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND WAS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER IN 2012; THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED IN 2014; PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BROUGHT IN 2022 IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AND THE MATTER IS NOW REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the matter should be remitted for a ruling on whether defendant defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Defendant, who was 16 at the time of the crime was convicted of manslaughter in 2012. His conviction was affirmed in 2014. In 2022 defendant moved for a writ of coram nobis to permit him to argue that Supreme Court erred by failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status:

The decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion to determine “if in the opinion of the court the interest of justice would be served by relieving the eligible youth from the onus of a criminal record” … . “Among the factors to be considered are the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, the defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, the defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, the defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . Defendant argues, the People concede, and we agree that defendant is an eligible youth; thus, Supreme Court erred in failing to determine defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status in the first instance … .

Although this Court has the authority to determine whether defendant is entitled to youthful offender status … , we decline the People’s invitation to do so here in the complete absence of any consideration by the sentencing court as to whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for the explicit purpose of providing an opportunity to the parties to fully advocate for and against whether youthful offender status for defendant is warranted … . People v Vanderhorst, 2025 NY Slip Op 01012, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s erroneous failure to consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status was first raised in a motion for a writ of coram nobis after defendant’s conviction had been affirmed on appeal.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS IMPROPERLY BOLSTERED IN OPINION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER AND A PSYCHOLOGIST ASSERTING THAT THE VICTIM WAS BELIEVABLE AND RELIABLE; A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE VICTIMS, IN WHICH THE VICTIM DENIED DEFENDANT HAD EVER MOLESTED THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in the interest of justice, reversed the “predatory sexual assault against a child” convictions which involved two victims, and ordered a severance if a new trial is held. The Third Department determined the credibility of one of the victims was improperly bolstered by the testimony by a police officer and a psychologist that they found the victim’s version of events believable and reliable. In addition, the Third Department held that a prior inconsistent statement by one of the victims, denying that defendant ever molested the victim, should have been admitted in evidence:

… [W]e find merit in defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon the testimonies of Breslin [a police officer] and Spagli [a psychologist], who each offered their opinion as to victim 2’s credibility. Accordingly, notwithstanding defendant’s failure to properly preserve his claim, we exercise our discretion and reverse in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] …). “It is always within the sole province of the jury to decide whether the testimony of any witness is truthful or not” … . As such, “to bolster the testimony of another witness . . . by explaining that his [or her] version of the events is more believable than the defendant’s, the . . . testimony is equivalent to an opinion that the defendant is guilty, and the receipt of such testimony may not be condoned” … . Here, Breslin testified that he “felt . . . [victim 2] was telling the truth.” Spagli, in turn, agreed that the goal of reaching the truth “was done in this case” and further testified that she “felt [victim 2] was reliable throughout the course of the investigation.” Supreme Court did not provide a curative instruction.

We are similarly persuaded by defendant’s claim that he was improperly denied the opportunity to impeach victim 2 about an alleged prior inconsistent statement given in an unrelated Family Court matter, in which victim 2 reportedly denied ever having been molested by defendant. * * * The impeachment testimony sought here … concerned the ultimate issue before the jury. Accordingly, we conclude that it was error to preclude defendant from exercizing his right to confront victim 2 about their prior statement; the court could have crafted limitations to prevent the disclosure of unduly prejudicial information upon such questioning … . People v Swartz, 2025 NY Slip Op 01015, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: If trial errors are severe enough, as they were here, an appellate court has the power to overlook the failure to preserve the errors and reverse in the interest of justice.

 

/ ,

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE STATE POLICE INVENTORY-SEARCH POLICY WERE MINOR AND DID NOT WARRANT SUPPRESSION OF THE HANDGUN FOUND IN THE SEARCH; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRDD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s suppression of a handgun found in an inventory search, determined any deviations from the State Police’s inventory-search procedure were minor and did not warrant suppression of evidence seized during the search:

As for whether the trooper who conducted the search of the Kia sufficiently complied with that policy, County Court determined that the trooper did not because “there [were] a great many items and effects within the vehicle that are not memorialized within the inventory form” and because the form “was not filled out until some many hours — if not days — after the search was conducted.” * * *

The foregoing were “minor deviation[s] from procedure” under the circumstances of this case “and did not undermine the reasonableness of the limited search,” particularly because “there was no indication that the police were using the procedure as a pretext to search for incriminating evidence” to begin with … . It is not the role of either County Court or this Court to “micromanage the procedures used to search properly impounded” vehicles and, as the record leaves no question both that the towing]and inventory search of the Kia were justified and that the ensuing list of the vehicle’s contents sufficiently complied with State Police policy to meet the constitutional minimum, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been denied in its entirety … . People v Craddock, 2025 NY Slip Op 01016, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held that any deviations from the State Police inventory-search procedure were minor and did not warrant suppression. Two justices dissented.

 

/ ,

IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, ABSENT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO DISPENSE WITH IT, A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING MUST BE HELD AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE FACT-FINDING HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the record supported termination of father’s parental rights, but the order must be reversed because the court failed to hold a dispositional hearing after the completion of the fact-finding hearing. The matter was remitted:

Family Court erred in failing to hold a dispositional hearing. “Family Ct Act § 625 (a) expressly provides that, upon completion of a fact-finding hearing, a dispositional hearing may commence immediately after the required findings are made; provided, however, that if all parties consent the court may, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, dispense with the dispositional hearing and make an order of disposition on the basis of competent evidence admitted at the fact-finding hearing” … . Given that the record is devoid of the parties’ consent to dispense with a dispositional hearing, the matter is remitted for a dispositional hearing “or to otherwise affirmatively gain the parties’ consent to dispense of the matter without one” … . Matter of Konner N. (Justin O.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01017, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the order terminating father’s parental rights was reversed because no dispositional hearing was held, and there was no indication the parties consented to proceeding without one. The matter was remitted.

 

/ , ,

THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVIVAL OF OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT IS NEITHER A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOR A CONDITION PRECEDENT; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL PROCEDURAL LAW, THE SECOND CIRCUIT MAY RULE THAT DEFENDANT FORFEITED THE RIGHT TO A TIMELINESS DISMISSAL OF THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT (BASED ON THE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS PREMATURE) BY FAILING TO TIMELY RAISE THE ISSUE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the six-month waiting period associated with the revival of negligence actions pursuant to the Child Victims Act, creating a two-year window for the filing of otherwise time-barred actions, was neither a statute of limitations nor a condition precedent. Therefore, under federal procedural law, the defendant’s failure to timely raise the issue in the federal proceedings forfeited his right to dismissal of the complaint on the ground plaintiff’s action was premature:

In 2019, the legislature passed the Child Victims Act (CVA), which provided that previously time-barred tort claims based on sex offenses against children could be brought within a specified time (see CPLR 214-g). As amended, the CVA provided that such a claim “is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than two years and six months after” February 14, 2019—i.e., “the effective date of this section” (id.). In other words, actions on these claims could be commenced “not earlier than” August 14, 2019 and “not later than” August 14, 2021. * * *

On April 26, 2019, plaintiff commenced a negligence action in state court against defendant, alleging that a teacher employed in one of defendant’s schools engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with her in and around 2009 and 2010, when she was a student under age 17, and that, in 2013, as a result of that conduct, the teacher pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree. * * *

On September 3, 2021, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant argued, for the first time, that the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff commenced her action before CPLR 214-g’s period for filing claims began. Significantly, defendant filed its motion less than three weeks after the statutory period for filing claims ended, meaning that plaintiff would be unable to recommence a timely action if defendant’s motion succeeded. Jones v Cattaraugus-Little Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 01007, CtApp 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals, answering the Second Circuit’s question, determined the six-month waiting period for an otherwise time-barred action brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act was not a statute of limitations or a condition precedent. Therefore the Second Circuit was free to deny a federal defendant’s motion to dismiss the Child Victims Act complaint on the ground the action was premature.

 

/ , ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EFFECTS OF THE EMISSION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS [HAPS] FROM THE PROPOSED “BIOSOLIDS REMEDIATION AND FERTILIZER PROCESSING FACILITY;” THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS THEREFORE DEEMED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition contesting the town planning board’s “negative declaration” regarding a proposed “biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility.” The record did not demonstrate that the planning board took the required “hard look” at the effects of the emissions from the facility. Instead the board relied on proposed mitigation measures overseen by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

… [T]he planning board failed to take a hard look at the project’s potential adverse impacts on air, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The voluminous record includes the planning board’s meeting minutes, recordings and other documents, all of which are devoid of evidence that the planning board “thoroughly analyze[d]” the project’s generation of 12.7 tons of designated HAPs [hazardous air pollutants] before it issued a negative declaration … . Instead, the planning board appears to have determined that, because the project’s HAP emissions were “mitigated” to fall below the 25-ton threshold for a major source, then emissions at 50% of that rate were also mitigated … . Not only is this conclusion “without sound basis in reason” — it is not clear why the planning board decided that mitigating the impact of 25 tons of HAPs would do the same for 12.7 tons of HAPs — but also “without . . . regard to the facts,” as the record confirms that the planning board never considered the potential impacts of the project’s HAP emissions at al … . * * *

… [T]he planning board’s unexplained deference to DEC’s permitting standards and periodic monitoring with respect to the impacts of the project’s emissions on air quality does not satisfy its SEQRA obligations, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3] …). Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v Town of Moreau Planning Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 01020, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: The lead agency for a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declaration cannot avoid a “hard look” at the potential hazardous air pollutants (HAPS} which will be produced by a proposed facility by simply deferring to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) permitting and monitoring of the facility.

 

/ , ,

MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WERE NEVER SERVED ON FATHER’S COUNSEL; THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER GRANTING THE OBJECTIONS IS VOID (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s child support order, which Family Court granted, should have been served on father’s counsel. Under the circumstances of the case, the failure to serve counsel rendered the related court orders void:

Family Ct Act § 439 (e) directs that “[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party, who shall have [13] days from such service to serve and file a written rebuttal to such objections.” This provision does not address the issue of whether service on an attorney representing a party constitutes service on the opposing party. Where a method of procedure is not prescribed, Family Ct Act § 165 (a) provides that “the provisions of the [CPLR] shall apply to the extent that they are appropriate to the proceedings involved … .” CPLR 2103 specifically pertains to the service of papers and provides that “papers to be served upon a party in a pending action shall be served upon the party’s attorney” (CPLR 2103 [b]). Accordingly, “service on an opposing party represented by counsel requires service on the attorney, not the party” … . The record supports that counsel was not served with the objections, and in fact only became aware of them upon receipt of Family Court’s order granting same. * * * … [C]ounsel never obtained a copy of the objections, and thus never responded to same. Matter of Andersen v Bosworth, 2025 NY Slip Op 01029, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the failure to serve father’s counsel with mother’s objections to the child support order, which were subsequently granted by Family Court, rendered the order granting the objections void.

 

/ ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT “SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET OTHER FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES” WAS NOT TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON) AND WAS THEREFORE DELETED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, deleting a condition of probation, determined that the condition that defendant “support dependents and meet other family responsibilities” was not tailored to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon):

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation ‘shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so'” … . “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant’s rehabilitation'” … .

Here, under the circumstances of this case, Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,” was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life … . People v Sobers, 2025 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Probation conditions must be tailored to the offense to which defendant pled guilty. Here the condition that defendant support dependents and meet family responsibilities was not relevant to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon).​

 

/

THE FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH SERVED AS A PREDICATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER DESIGNATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM INVOLVED BE OPERABLE; THE RELEVANT NEW YORK FELONY OFFENSE INCLUDES OPERABILITY AS AN ELEMENT; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A VALID PREDICATE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second-felony-offender designation, determined the federal crime constituting the predicate offense was not a felony in New York  One of the elements of the relevant New York felony was that the firearm involved in the offense be operable. That element was missing from the federal offense:

“Penal Law § 70.06 requires the imposition of enhanced sentences for those found to be predicate felons” … . Among other criteria, for the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction, the conviction must have been in New York of a felony, “or in any other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed” (Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). “Since New York authorizes sentences exceeding one year only for felonies, the second prong of this statutory test requires an inquiry to determine whether the foreign conviction has an equivalent among New York’s felony-level crimes” … . “As a general rule, this inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes’ elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 00977, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s prior federal offense did not require that the firearm involve be operable. The corresponding New York felony requires operability. Therefore the federal offense could not serve as a predicate offense for a second-felony-offender designation.

 

/ , ,

DENYING FATHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY AND HIS RIGHT TO A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied father’s request for an adjournment of the custody modification proceedings. Father was effectively denied his right to testify:

“The granting of an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the hearing court upon a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” … . “The determination to grant or deny an adjournment will not be overturned absent an improvident exercise of discretion” … . While adjournments are within the discretion of the hearing court, the range of that discretion is narrowed where a fundamental right of the parties is involved … . Generally, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody and visitation order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required, where due process requires that a parent be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard … .

After balancing the relevant factors, we find that under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s request for an adjournment, as the court’s denial of the requests for adjournment deprived the father entirely of his right to testify on his own behalf in the custody modification hearing, thereby depriving him of a full and fair evidentiary hearing … . Matter of Panizo v Douglas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00966, Second Dept, 2-19-25

Practice Point: Although the decision to grant or deny a request for an adjournment is discretionary, here the denial of the request effectively deprived father of his right to a full and fair evidentiary hearing in this custody modification proceeding, requiring reversal.

 

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