The Fourth Department determined that evidence of a 1991 offense that was dismissed with the record sealed was admissible in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 “dangerous sex offender” proceeding to determined whether defendant had a mental abnormality: Evidence of prior crimes is commonly admissible in article 10 proceedings because it is probative of whether […]
In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained: The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial […]
The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder. The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be […]
The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree in a shooting case where there was no evidence anyone was near the line of fire: “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct […]
In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department held that a statement was correctly admitted as a dying declaration: [The trial court admitted] as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule the testimony of a prosecution witness that, after being shot in the inner thigh, the victim stated, “I got robbed” and “I got shot.” […]
The Fourth Department noted that a valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass a challenge to the severity of the sentence when the defendant was not advised of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration. The court, however, concluded the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. People […]
The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s suppression ruling. The Fourth Department determined that a search warrant for “a business store front style building…” allowed the officers to search a series of inter-connected rooms behind the storefront area: We agree with the People that the warrant sufficiently described the premises to be searched …. Although “a […]
The Fourth Department determined all charges but the Rape in the First Degree charge had to be dismissed as time-barred. A change in the statute of limitations for Rape First applied to all such charges not time-barred at the time of the statutory change: In 2002, when the crimes were committed, the statute of limitations […]
The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was not unlawfully seized under the following facts: At the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that he stopped defendant because defendant was riding the motorbike in the road without a helmet. When the officer asked defendant whether he had […]
The Fourth Department determined a police officer, who was outside his jurisdiction when he arrested the defendant for DWI and traffic offenses, did not have the authority to arrest for the “petty offenses” but did have the authority to arrest for DWI: The authority of a police officer to arrest an individual for a “petty […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy