You are here: / Appeals
, , ,

WHERE THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE A LEGAL ISSUE, THE FACTUAL DISPUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE; WHETHER THE RECORD GIVES RISE TO A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE IS A QUESTION OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a factual dispute about whether an attorney (Santamarina) validly waived personal jurisdiction on behalf of defendant Koukis required a hearing:

Supreme Court decided Mr. Koukis’s motion without a factual hearing, holding that Mr. Santamarina lacked authority to act on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and vacating his waiver of personal jurisdiction and service defenses. But Supreme Court concluded that personal jurisdiction existed over Mr. Koukis pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (2). It therefore set the matter down for a traverse hearing to determine if service on Mr. Koukis of the summons and complaint was proper.

Before the traverse hearing occurred, the Appellate Division modified the order of Supreme Court by vacating the default judgment and granting Mr. Koukis’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Division held that “there was no basis to conclude that Koukis authorized Santamarina to appear and waive all jurisdictional defenses on his behalf” … . Additionally, the majority departed from Supreme Court in its analysis of CPLR 302 (a) (2), concluding that the court did not have personal jurisdiction and dismissing the complaint in its entirety … . Two Justices partially dissented on the ground that Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina had the authority to represent Mr. Koukis … . We now reverse on the basis that there is a material factual dispute as to whether Mr. Koukis authorized or ratified the waiver of personal jurisdiction

[Plaintiff] was entitled to a factual hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina validly appeared on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and waived personal jurisdiction. Where the record shows a “factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue,” the court may not grant the motion without first holding a hearing (… see … CPLR 2218). Whether the record gives rise to such a factual dispute is a question of law … .Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis, 2025 NY Slip Op 01565, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: Here there was a factual dispute on a material issue which had to be decided before the related legal question could be answered. Therefore a hearing was required to resolve the factual issue before the court addressed the legal issue. Whether a factual dispute on a material issue exists raises a question of law.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE MANDATORY FINES FOR THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OFFENSES; AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED; AN APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT PRECLUDE ARGUING THE PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not voluntary because he was not informed of the mandatory fines for the Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses. Although the error was not preserved, the “no actual or practical ability to object” preservation exception was invoked: An appeal waiver does not preclude the defendant from arguing the plea was involuntary:

An exception to the preservation requirement exists where, as here, a defendant had “no actual or practical ability to object” prior to the imposition of the fines by the sentencing court … . Further, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a plea as involuntary, where the court fails to advise a defendant of a component of their sentence before it is imposed … .

Supreme Court erred in failing to inform defendant at the time of his plea that the sentences for two of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty included mandatory fines (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [a]) The failure to “ensure that . . . defendant, before pleading guilty, ha[d] a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … , requires vacatur of the plea. People v Padilla-Zuniga, 2025 NY Slip Op 01563, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant of mandatory fines renders the guilty plea involuntary.

Practice Point: Here the “no actual or practical ability to object” exception to the preservation requirement applied.

Practice Point: An appeal waiver does not preclude the argument that the plea was involuntarily entered.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS 20 YEARS BUT THE JUDGE REPEATEDLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WAS FACING 45 YEARS; THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently because the judge repeatedly told the defendant he was facing 45 years in prison when his sentence was capped at 20. The dissent argued the error was not preserved:

The issue on appeal is whether defendant Marquese Scott’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Supreme Court made an egregious error during the plea proceedings, repeatedly asserting that defendant faced up to 45 years’ incarceration if found guilty after trial, when his maximum exposure was statutorily capped at 20 years. As we have long recognized, inaccurate information regarding a sentence is a significant factor in determining whether a plea was voluntary. Given defendant’s young age, his inexperience facing serious charges with the risk of consecutive sentencing, and the vast disparity between the plea offer of 6 to 8 years and the court’s erroneous assertion that he faced 25 years more than the law allowed, we hold that defendant’s guilty plea was not the result of a free and informed choice. Accordingly, defendant’s plea cannot stand. * * *

From the dissent:

With only narrow exceptions, we have unequivocally required a defendant to preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of their plea by making “a motion to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10” … . People v Scott, 2025 NY Slip Op 01562, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: A guilty plea entered after the defendant is erroneously told he is facing 45 years in prison when the sentence is statutorily capped at 20 is not voluntary.​

Practice Point: Here the dissent argued the majority should not have carved out a new exception to the preservation requirement to consider the merits of this case.

 

,

ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND; THE ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the assault third conviction must be reverses as an inclusory concurrent count of the assault second degree conviction. The issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [A]ssault in the third degree is an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree … . Thus, that part of the judgment convicting defendant of assault in the third degree must be reversed and count 2 of the indictment dismissed … , and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Contrary to the People’s contention, preservation of this issue is not required … . People v Niles, 2025 NY Slip Op 01502, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Assault third is an inclusory concurrent count of assault second. A defendant cannot stand convicted of both. The issue can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

, ,

THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOOTING WAS DNA ON A HANDGUN; THE EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s murder conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The only evidence against the defendant was DNA on a handgun. No evidence placed defendant at the scene of the shooting or in the vehicle apparently used by persons (Jenkins and Brown) involved in the shooting:

… [T]here no evidence from which to infer that defendant had the intent to commit, or aid Jenkins or Brown in furtherance of, the shooting. The People’s case depends almost entirely upon the DNA evidence, from which the People infer that defendant racked the Glock used to kill Ms. Jacobs. The DNA evidence, however, is highly equivocal and does not reasonably permit such an inference. … Critically, the OCME [Office of the Chief Medical Examiner] criminalist Hardy testified that it was impossible to determine when each contributor left DNA on the gun; how defendant’s DNA was transferred to the gun; or, more importantly, whether defendant even touched the gun. Without additional evidence that defendant possessed the gun during or took any actions to aid Jenkins or Brown in the shooting, any conclusion that defendant possessed the gun or committed or aided in the shooting is based entirely on conjecture.

There is no such corroborating evidence. This case contains no physical, video, or testimonial proof regarding any act defendant took in furtherance of possessing the gun or shooting Ms. Jacobs. Even assuming arguendo defendant’s presence with Jenkins and Brown nearly two hours before the shooting, such does not lead to a permissible inference that he shot Ms. Jacobs or possessed the gun in furtherance of the crime that evening. * * *

Further, there is no legally sufficient evidence proving that defendant was present at the crime scene. Again, assuming that defendant was with Jenkins and Brown hours prior to the shooting does not permit any reasonable inference that he was with them at the crime scene. There is no evidence that defendant ever entered the Nissan. Nor was there evidence that he was present in the Nissan at the time of the chase. While police recovered from the Nissan fingerprints of Jenkins, Brown, and that of a third unidentified back seat passenger, they did not recover defendant’s prints. Additionally, the liquor bottles with which the People attempt to tie defendant to the car do not match those defendant purchased at the liquor store, and the bottles were never tested for defendant’s fingerprints or DNA. People v Coke, 2025 NY Slip Op 01297, First Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for discussions of convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. the criteria for finding evidence legally insufficient. and the criteria for finding a verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

 

, , ,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS (RAISED BY A DEFENSE INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED WITH THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS) ABOUT WHETHER THE DESCRIPTON OF THE SEARCHED PREMISES IN THE WARRANT WAS ACCURATE, REQUIRING A HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, remanding the matter for a suppression hearing, and finding the appeal waiver invalid, determined there were questions about whether the search warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. The warrant indicated there was only one apartment, with an unmarked tan door. The defendant’s investigator submitted evidence demonstrating there were two apartments, neither with a tan door, and the door to the searched apartment was marked with a number one, while the other apartment door was unmarked:

The plea colloquy contained several defects. It did not make clear, expressly or tacitly, that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the Boykin rights defendant was automatically forfeiting with the plea; the colloquy suggested that the appeal waiver was absolute, offering no clue that some core appellate claims would survive; and, relatedly, the colloquy wrongly indicated that no appeal was permissible on the fundamental issues of whether the plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the sentence was legal.

The written waiver cannot save the oral appeal waiver. The plea court did not confirm that defendant had read the written waiver; the court did not confirm that defendant had discussed the written waiver with counsel; and the court did not confirm that defendant understood the written waiver … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s submissions in support of his omnibus motion call into question whether the search warrant contains a misdescription of the premises to be searched, and, if there is a misdescription, whether it renders the warrant invalid. Specifically, defendant’s omnibus motion submissions raise a question of fact as to whether, based on what the police officer knew or should have known about the premises when the search warrant was sought, the warrant’s description of the target premises was accurate … . [D]efendant here submitted evidence (in particular, the affirmation of the investigator who visited the premises and the photographs of 955 Bruckner Boulevard taken by the investigator) about the “actual conditions of the premises” in support of his omnibus motion … . Additionally, assuming there was a misdescription of the premises to be searched, a question of fact exists as to whether there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would have been searched … .

We cannot resolve the issues raised by defendant’s omnibus motion submissions without a hearing (see CPL 710.60[4]; see also CPL 710.60[2] …). This is not a situation where it is plain from the existing record that there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would be searched regardless of any misdescription … . People v Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a detailed explanation of the criteria for a valid waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: Here the defense investigator submitted evidence which raised a question whether the search warrant accurately described the premises to be searched. The matter was remanded for a hearing.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

IF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE VARIES FROM THE THEORY OF THE INDICTMENT, THE RELATED CONVICTIONS WILL BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s convictions on some counts, determined the trial evidence varied from the theory of the indictment. The facts were not explained:

This Court agrees with the parties that defendant’s conviction under count 2 of the indictment charging grand larceny in the fourth degree, as well as criminal acts 1 and 6 alleged in count 1 of the indictment charging enterprise corruption, must be reversed because the trial evidence, which included evidence suggesting that defendant threatened physical damage to construction sites through vandalism, varied from the theory of the indictment (see People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 496-498 [1988]). People v Correll, 2025 NY Slip Op 00796, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: If the trial evidence does not comport with the theory of the indictment, the related counts will be vacated.​

 

, , ,

DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED SOLELY UPON THE FACT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FELONIES WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE IN NEW YORK, A QUESTION NOT RAISED BEFORE COUNTY COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s SORA designation as a sexually violent offender based upon Pennsylvania convictions as a violation of due process, but remitted the matter to Count Court for consideration of the issue under another provision of the Correction Law:

… [W]e conclude, based on the reasoning set forth by the plurality in People v Malloy (228 AD3d 1284, 1287-1291 [4th Dept 2024]), that there is no rational basis for designating defendant a sexually violent offender solely on the ground of his conviction of the Pennsylvania felony sex offenses requiring him to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction … . Defendant has therefore met his burden of showing that the imposition of the sexually violent offender designation under the second disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b), as applied to him, violates his constitutional right to substantive due process. Consequently, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and vacate that designation.

However, we note that the issue whether the essential elements of any of the Pennsylvania felonies were the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York under the essential elements test set out in the first disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) was never raised before County Court. We decline to consider that alternative basis for affirmance, sua sponte, for the first time on appeal … . We therefore remit to County Court to consider whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies includes all of the essential elements of a sexually violent offense set forth in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a) … . People v Boldorff, 2025 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: A sexually-violent-offender designation based solely upon the fact defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Pennsylvania was deemed unconstitutional here. But the matter was remitted for a determination whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies would have constituted a sexually violent offense in New York.​

 

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