You are here: / Appeals
, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS SUPPRESSED ON APPEAL, BUT THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HELD THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S HARMLESS-ERROR FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Fourth Department should not have concluded the failure to suppress defendant’s statement was harmless error. Defendant pled guilty with the intention of appealing the denial of his suppression motion:

… [T]he Appellate Division held that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed, but that, because the gun would still have been admissible at trial, the error was harmless as there was no reasonable possibility that it contributed to defendant’s decision to plead guilty. On this record, however, we cannot say with certainty that the erroneous ruling played no part in that decision, and therefore we reverse. * * *

The record here is ambiguous at best as to defendant’s motivation in pleading guilty. Although defendant asserted during the plea colloquy that he was “pleading guilty because it’s a good deal,” he may only have believed that “in the face of all the evidence” admissible at the time, including his highly incriminating post-arrest statement “you saw what I had on me” … . Moreover, when entering his plea, defendant affirmatively sought assurances from the court that he could appeal the suppression determination, indicating the importance he placed on that adverse ruling …. . The People’s argument that defendant may only have been concerned with the court’s suppression of the physical evidence is speculative and insufficient to overcome the high bar for establishing defendant’s independent motivation for the plea. On this record, we cannot say that defendant’s decision to plead guilty was unaffected by the court’s erroneous suppression ruling, and therefore his guilty plea must be vacated. People v Robles, 2024 NY Slip Op 05819, CtApp 11-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the difficulty in applying a harmless-error analysis to a guilty plea.

 

,

SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the People’s appeal was timely because defendant never served the order dismissing the indictment on them so the 30-day appeal period never started running, and (2) the People were not obligated to turn over Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) documents to comply with their discovery obligations because the People did not possess those documents:

The Court of Appeals has “interpreted CPL 460.10 (1) (a) ‘to require prevailing party service’—not just the handing out of an order by the court—’to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that the People received a copy of the original order, but there is “no evidence that [defendant] ever served the order as required by CPL 460.10 (1) (a)” … . Inasmuch as the record fails to establish that defendant ever served the People with a copy of the original order, the People’s 30-day period to appeal never began to run and the People’s appeal is therefore timely … . * * *

… [A]ssuming … that the parole officer’s disciplinary records from DOCCS met the relevancy prong as being related to the subject matter of the case, we conclude that the People established that those records did not meet the possessory prong required to prompt their initial discovery obligation with respect thereto (see CPL 245.20 [1] …). “[F]or the purposes of discovery, DOCCS is not a ‘law enforcement’ agency” and is ” ‘outside of the legal or practical control of local prosecutors’ and, therefore, the People cannot be deemed to be in constructive possession of that which DOCCS possesses” … . People v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05662, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: If the defendant wins a motion to dismiss the indictment, the defendant must serve the People with the dismissal order or the People’s 30-day appeal period does not start running.

Practice Point: The People do not violate their discovery obligations by failing to turn over documents which are in the possession of another agency, here the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS).

 

, , , ,

THE RECORD ON APPEAL DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S RULING MOTHER HAD FORFEITED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record on appeal did not support Family Court’s ruling mother had forfeited her right to counsel in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding.

​… Family Court granted a second application by the mother’s assigned counsel to be relieved and determined that the mother had forfeited her right to be assigned new counsel. The court’s determination was based upon, among other things, “suspicions” that the mother had been “involved” in a recent security compromise of the assigned counsel’s computer. The court also cited as a basis for its determination the fact that, over the course of the child protective proceeding and this proceeding, the mother had a total of three attorneys assigned to represent her or to act as her legal advisor. The record on appeal does not reflect how long the prior assigned attorneys represented the mother or why they ceased representing her. * * *

A respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b has the right to the assistance of counsel … . A party may forfeit the fundamental right to counsel by engaging in “‘egregious conduct,'” but only as a matter of “‘extreme, last resort'” … . Here, the record fails to clearly reflect that the mother engaged in the sort of egregious conduct that would justify a finding that she forfeited her right to assigned counsel … .

The deprivation of the mother’s right to counsel requires reversal without regard to the merits of her position … . Matter of Sa’Nai F. B. M. A. (Chaniece T.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05440, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the criteria for finding a party in a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding has forfeited the right to counsel.​

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, finding that the proof the victim suffered “serious physical injury” in this assault case insufficient, reduced defendant’s conviction from assault second to assault third. There was evidence the victim suffered a fractured jaw which was wired shut for weeks. But the evidence did not establish a “protracted impairment of health or … function of any bodily organ:”

As to the victim’s injuries, an oral surgeon who examined the victim diagnosed him with a fracture to the left side of his mandible, consistent with facial trauma, and performed a surgical procedure to wire the victim’s jaw shut. The victim testified that his jaw was wired shut for several weeks and that he was unable to eat solid food for six weeks, causing him to lose approximately 25 pounds. At the trial, which was approximately 10 months after the incident, the victim continued to experience very occasional pain that he described as similar to arthritis. Although we do not minimize the trauma and pain suffered by the victim, the record is devoid of evidence about the injury’s effect on the victim’s daily living to support a finding that he sustained a “protracted impairment of health or . . . of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10] …). Consequently, we are constrained to find that the verdict convicting defendant of assault in the second degree is against the weight of the evidence, as the record does not establish that the victim suffered a “serious physical injury,” as that term is defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (10) … . People v Dillon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05246, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision to gain some insight into what “serious physical injury” means as an element of Assault 2nd.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE CO-DEFENDANT POSSESSED A WEAPON, THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE CO-DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined that, although the proof demonstrated defendant’s awareness that the co-defendant possessed a firearm, that awareness alone did not give rise to accomplice liability for the co-defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon: Defendant was convicted after a four-day trial. The Third Department held the conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence:

We agree with defendant that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence. … [T]he jury could rely on testimony by the People’s witnesses describing defendant’s conduct during the incident as evidence that defendant was aware the codefendant possessed the subject handgun before the codefendant displayed it to those witnesses … . Still, accessorial liability requires evidence directed at the equally important actus reus element, i.e., that ” ‘the accomplice must have intentionally aided the principal in bringing forth a result’ ” … . Here, even though “defendant’s conduct suggested that he may have known that [the codefendant] had a gun, there was no proof that . . . defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided him to possess the gun” … . What defendant did or said in furtherance of the codefendant’s possession of the subject handgun was left to the jurors’ imaginations … . Such speculation cannot be the basis for defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Goodman, 2024 NY Slip Op 05249, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: To be convicted of a co-defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon under an accomplice theory, the proof must demonstrate the defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the co-defendant to possess the gun (in addition to the mens rea, the actus reus must be proven).

 

​

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR A COURT-OF-APPEALS REVIEW OF AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE ANALYSIS IS EXPLAINED; HERE DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION, BASED ENTIRELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, WHICH AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurring opinions and an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the Appellate Division properly conducted a weight-of-the-evidence review of an entirely circumstantial manslaughter prosecution (affirming the conviction):

Jorge Baque’s five-month-old daughter was found unresponsive in her crib at 6:30 a.m. on July 30, 2016. Despite efforts to resuscitate her, she was declared dead. An autopsy revealed that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with abusive head trauma and violent shaking. Baque was arrested and charged with manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. * * *

The question before us is whether the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in conducting its review of the weight of the evidence, in this purely circumstantial case. Weight of the evidence review is a “unique” power afforded to intermediate appellate courts, and one that they exercise regularly … . It requires the Appellate Division to “independently assess all the proof” and “to serve, in effect, as a second jury” … . * * *

This Court reviews a weight of the evidence determination to assess whether the “order and writings of the intermediate appellate court manifest a lack of application of [its] review power” … . “[W]e cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle” … . We have never required the Appellate Division to “manifest its weight of evidence review power by writing in all criminal cases” … . Indeed, the Appellate Division “could have summarily affirmed without explicitly addressing the merits of defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence” … . People v Baque, 2024 NY Slip Op 05244, CtApp 10-24-22

Practice Point: This decision is a rare Court-of-Appeals review of an appellate division’s weight-of-the-evidence affirmance of a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The unique criteria for review by the Court of Appeals is explained.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF GUILT MADE WHEN HIS APPEAL WAS PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING FOR “FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined defendant should not have been assessed 10 points for failure to accept responsibility because his denial of guilt was made when his appeal was pending:

… [T]he court should not have assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility. Defendant’s denials of guilt were made at the time his appeal from his underlying conviction was pending. “Requiring defendant to accept responsibility could potentially result in his admissions being used against him in any retrial, violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination” … . People v Wallace, 2024 NY Slip Op 05189, First Dept 10-22-24

Practice Point: A denial of guilt made when defendant’s appeal was pending and there was a chance for a retrial cannot be used against him in a SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

, , , ,

FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts court was the most convenient forum for this custody matter, determined Family Court’s failure to place on the record the factors it considered in making its ruling, combined with absence of any testimony, rendered the record inadequate for review, requiring remittal:

“Where, as here, a New York court has continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter, it may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it determines that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state is a more appropriate forum” … . A court is obliged to consider eight statutory factors in rendering that determination, and “[t]hose statutory factors include (1) ‘whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child,’ (2) the length of time the children have resided in another state, (3) the distance between the two states in question, (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties, (5) any agreement among the parties regarding jurisdiction, (6) the nature and location of relevant evidence, including testimony from the children, (7) the ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the relevant evidence, and (8) the familiarity of each court with the relevant facts and issues” (… Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]). Notably, the “determination depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation, and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute” … .

… Family Court did not explicitly refer to the statutory factors during its conference with the Massachusetts court, which was essentially a back-and-forth between the judges on issues that included the language of the prior custody orders, the nature of the cases presently before them and the differences between New York and Massachusetts laws governing custody proceedings. The parties were not invited to, and did not, offer any testimony regarding the relative convenience of the two forums. Matter of Mark AA. v Susan BB., 2024 NY Slip Op 05173, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court did not make an adequate record to support its ruling that a Massachusetts court was the more convenient forum for this custody matter. There were no submissions by the parties and there was no testimony. The statutory factors were not explicitly referenced. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” POWER TO REDUCE AN OTHERWISE LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL; HERE THE MAJORITY CHOSE NOT TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE; A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED FOR A REDUCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, over an extensive two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea to attempted murder and declined to reduce the eight-year sentence in the interest of justice. Defendant is seriously mentally ill and has endured almost indescribable hardships throughout his life, which are detailed in the dissent. The underlying question here is, given the prison system’s inability to properly care for the seriously mentally ill, should the appellate court exercise its power to reduce this defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. The majority answered “no” and the dissent argued “yes.” The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

From the dissent:

… [R]esearch … demonstrates that people with serious psychiatric needs are more likely to be violently victimized and housed in segregation while in prison. That research also shows that the vast majority of people with mental illness in jails and prisons do not receive care, and for those that do, the care is generally inadequate.… This is of particular concern given [defendant’s] history of suicide attempts … .

This case raises an important question: What is the utility of extended incarceration under the present circumstances? Specifically, where, among other things, the offense occurred during a time when [defendant] had been unmedicated for five days and, moreover, the record suggests—as evidenced by [defendant’s] comments to the police when arrested and a subsequent mental examination—that his severe mental illness contributed to what is his first and only criminal conviction. People v Paulino, 2024 NY Slip Op 04625, First Dept 9-26-24

Practice Point: The appellate courts have the “interest of justice” power to reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence based upon a defendant’s mental illness.

 

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