The First Department determined a motion to set aside a verdict in a negligent design case was properly denied. The jury found the car manufacture negligent in not installing a device (starter interlock device) such that the car (1987) car could not be started when it was in gear. The First Department wrote: The trial […]
As the Court of Appeals explained, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the issue and ruling: “The primary issue in each of these buy-and-bust cases is whether the trial court properly closed the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of undercover officers. We conclude that the limited closures comported with Sixth Amendment […]
In upholding the limits the trial court placed upon the cross-examination of a witness concerning the witness’ mental health history, the Fourth Department wrote: A defendant may question a witness about his or her mental health or psychiatric history upon a showing that the witness’s “capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by a […]
In a writ of coram nobis proceeding, the issue was whether the trial court’s handling of notes sent out by the jury during deliberations violated Criminal Procedure Law 310.30. Because the record did not clearly indicate the contents of some of the notes, and therefore it was impossible to determine whether the court’s “core responsibilities” […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fahey, the Fourth Department determined that the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit was authorized, pursuant to Executive Law 63, to prosecute the defendants, who provided federal Medicare services exclusively but received payment from both Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, the Fourth Department determined that the federal statute which […]
On a writ of coram nobis, the Fourth Department determined the failure to inform defendant of the People’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment required that the writ be granted. The Fourth Department wrote: “It is well settled that criminal defendants are entitled under both the Federal and State Constitutions to effective […]
The Fourth Department determined a juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective because it included only the conclusory allegation that the juvenile possessed Adderall without any evidentiary facts to support it: The petition alleged that respondent knowingly and unlawfully sold a controlled substance, i.e., Adderall (see Penal Law § 220.31).The Court of Appeals has made clear […]
The Fourth Department determined drugs seized from defendant’s person incident to his arrest should have been suppressed because defendant’s warrantless arrest took place in his home in the absence of exigent circumstances. The court also noted that the search and seizure of a package from Paraguay addressed to defendant did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights […]
In determining “exigent circumstances” did not exist and therefore the entry of the defendant’s home without a warrant was not justified, the Fourth Department wrote: Factors to consider in determining whether exigent circumstances exist are “(1) the nature and degree of urgency involved and the amount of time needed to obtain a warrant; (2) a […]
In determining the sentencing court had erroneously imposed consecutive sentences for offenses arising out of the same incident, the Fourth Department wrote: “[S]entences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively:(1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy