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 […]
In affirming the denial of a 440 motion to vacate defendant’s conviction based upon a co-defendant’s affidavit stating the defendant was not involved in the crimes, the Fourth Department wrote: It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, […]
The Fourth Department, over a dissent by two justices, determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support criminal contempt in the first degree: Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant repeatedly made telephone calls to his ex-girlfriend, we agree with him that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish […]
In affirming the denial of a 440 motion by a defendant convicted of murder seeking DNA testing of blood evidence, the Fourth Department wrote: We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing … “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been […]
The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence for criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree from 2 to 7 years to 7 months. The People conceded the original sentence was unduly harsh and severe. People v Raszl, 596, 4th Dept 7-5-13
In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for corroboration of accomplice testimony, and the admissible evidence in a restitution hearing: “New York’s accomplice corroboration protection requires only enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplices have offered credible probative evidence that connects the accomplice evidence to the defendant”…. Even the most “[s]eemingly […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy