You are here: / Appeals
,

Unpreserved Erroneous Denial of Challenge to Juror Required Reversal

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, reversed defendant’s conviction based on the trial court’s (unpreserved) error in denying defense counsel’s challenge to a juror for cause.  (Defense counsel did not challenge the juror on the specific ground raise on appeal):

Here, during voir dire, a prospective juror stated, “[j]ust my upbringing tells me that the police saw fit to arrest and the District Attorney saw fit to prosecute, so that automatically renders my opinion.” The prospective juror never unequivocally stated that his prior state of mind regarding the police and the District Attorney would not influence his verdict, and that he would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence. His responses as a whole showed that there was doubt as to his ability to be impartial. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s application to discharge this prospective juror for cause … . Because defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge against this prospective juror, and also exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, this error cannot be considered harmless … . People v Campbell, 2013 NY Slip Op 07500, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, , ,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Evidence Relating to Victim’s Recantation at SORA Hearing

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to present evidence (at the SORA hearing) of the victim’s (his daughter’s) recantation of her allegations of sexual abuse, including the testimony of the victim:

The Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from offering into evidence affidavits from his daughter recanting the underlying allegations of sexual abuse, and denying the defendant’s motion in limine to permit his daughter to testify at the SORA hearing. At a SORA hearing, “[t]he court shall allow the sex offender to appear and be heard” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). The People bear of the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of points under the Guidelines issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C [hereinafter SORA]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]). The SORA court “shall review any victim’s statement and any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and the recommendation and any materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsay evidence submitted by either party, provided that it is relevant to the determinations” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Further, “[f]acts previously proven at trial or elicited at the time of entry of a plea of guilty shall be deemed established by clear and convincing evidence and shall not be relitigated” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the only facts elicited at the time of the defendant’s plea of guilty were that, on one occasion, he touched his daughter’s breasts and that he did so for sexual gratification, and therefore he was barred from relitigating those facts in this SORA proceeding (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). However, the defendant was entitled to rely upon the proffered evidence for the limited purpose of contesting the People’s allegations that he engaged in intercourse with his daughter and that the sexual misconduct was ongoing, which resulted in the assessment of points under risk factors 2 and 4. Since the excluded evidence was relevant to material issues at the hearing (i.e., the nature and duration of the sexual contact), the defendant should have been permitted to introduce it… . People v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 07459, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, ,

Review of Action Brought Under General Municipal Law Section 4 (Re: Unlawful Use of Tax, Water and Sewer Funds) Must Be by Article 78, Not Appeal

In an action brought pursuant to General Municipal Law section 4 for an order directing a summary investigation into the financial affairs of the respondents (village, fire department and water board), the Third Department determined the respondents could not appeal Supreme Court’s ordering of the investigation. The petitioners alleged the tax, water and sewer moneys collected may have been corruptly and/or unlawfully expended. The petitioners’ only avenue for court review is an Article 78 prohibition proceeding:

This appeal must be dismissed as there is no appeal as of right from Supreme Court’s order in this statutory special proceeding directing a summary investigation (see CPLR 5701 [a]; see also CPLR art 4…).   Although certain respondents contend, seemingly persuasively, that Supreme Court is not authorized by General Municipal Law § 4 to direct an investigation against them as they are not a “village” or “town,” this Court cannot grant their requested relief in the absence of an appealable order.  We note that respondents could have moved in Supreme Court to dismiss on this ground within the time allowed for an answer; having properly raised this defense as an objection in point of law in their answer, respondents are entitled to pursue summary dismissal of this special proceeding in that court, in the first instance (see CPLR 404 [a]; see also CPLR 7804 [f]; Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 7804:7 at 673-675).  At this juncture, those claims could only be addressed by this Court in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, instituted in this Court (see CPLR 506 [b] [1]; 7803 [2]…).  Matter of Village of Victory…, 515205, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

,

People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing as a Youthful Offender—No Statute Allows Such an Appeal

In dismissing the People’s appeal, the Second Department explained that there was no statutory right for an appeal of the judge’s vacating defendant’s conviction and sentencing defendant as a youthful offender.  The only vehicle for the People was an article 78 prohibition proceeding:”

The Criminal Procedure Law expressly enumerates and describes the orders appealable by the People to the Appellate Division in a criminal case (see CPL 450.20…), and “[n]o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute” … . As no statute authorizes an appeal by the People to the Appellate Division from an order, in effect, vacating a conviction and adjudicating a defendant a youthful offender (see CPL 450.20), the People’s appeal must be dismissed …. The proper vehicle for challenging the Supreme Court’s determination is a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition… . People v Tony C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07055, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Anders Brief Rejected

In finding an “Anders” brief insufficient, the Second Department wrote:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to adequately recite the underlying facts in the case and analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” …, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant… . People v Francis, 2013 NY Slip Op 07058, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Stay During Appellate Process Expires Five Days After Court of Appeals Denies Leave to Appeal

A police officer was dismissed from the force just before his retirement pension vested. The dismissal was vacated by Supreme Court because of flaws in serving the officer with notice of the charges.  The First Department affirmed and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.  The First Department noted that the stay of the proceedings which was in effect during the appeals process (CPLR 5519(a)) terminated five days after the Court of Appeals denied leave (CPLR 5519(e)(ii)).  The commissioner’s failure to hold a new hearing and issue a new dismissal order within thirty days of the denial of leave resulted in the automatic vesting of the officer’s pension. Matter of Toolasprashad v Kelly, 2013 NY Slip Op 06772, 1st Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Court Refused to Entertain All Issues Raised on Appeal Because They Were Not Raised Below and Could Not Be Determined as Matters of Law

In a case involving an assessment by defendant against plaintiff under the Federal Power Act for costs associated with a hydropower plant, dams and reservoirs, the Third Department noted that none of defendant’s arguments on appeal could be addressed because they were not raised below:

On appeal, defendant makes none of the arguments raised in connection with the motions before Supreme Court.  Instead, defendant now argues that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for a refund by failing to allege that it paid the unauthorized assessments under protest.  However, “[a]n appellate court should not, and will not, consider different theories or new questions, if proof might have been offered to refute or overcome them had they been presented at the trial [level]” … .  By raising this issue for the first time on appeal, defendant has deprived plaintiff of the opportunity to provide evidence of any protest.  The issue is, therefore, not properly before us, and we decline to consider it (see CPLR 5501 [a] [3]…).  Similarly, defendant’s contention that equity does not support a finding of unjust enrichment is also fact-intensive and, as such, it too was required to be raised before Supreme Court in order to be preserved for appellate review … .

Also unpreserved is defendant’s alternative argument that the action is time-barred … .  Although listed as an affirmative defense in the answer, defendant did not pursue dismissal of the action on this ground … .  Nor is this an issue of law that may be addressed for the first time on appeal, as plaintiff responds that it would be entitled to a toll of the statute of limitations based on the ongoing administrative proceedings and we must agree that the question of whether a statute of limitations is tolled raises factual issues … . Inasmuch as there are steps that plaintiff might have taken to counter the statute of limitations defense if it had been raised before Supreme Court, the issue is not properly before us and, again, we decline to consider it … .  Albany Engineering Corp v Hudson River/Black River Regulating District, 516220, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

, ,

Assignment of Counsel Required Before Determining Whether Appeal Should Be Dismissed as Untimely

The Court of Appeals determined the appellate division was required to assign counsel upon a showing of indigency before ruling on whether defendant’s first-tier appeal as of right should be dismissed for failure to meet the timeliness requirement in the 2nd Department’s rules:

In this case, the Appellate Division erroneously failed to assign counsel to represent defendant before dismissing his first-tier appeal as of right based on his failure to timely perfect it.  Notwithstanding the Appellate Division’s rule mandating automatic dismissal of an untimely perfected appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [f]), its decision to dismiss the appeal here remained a discretionary determination on the merits of a threshold issue on defendant’s first-tier And an appellate court had not yet passed on, nor had counsel presented, defendant’s appellate claims with respect to dismissal or any other matter, thus leaving defendant ill equipped to represent himself. Because the factors cited in Douglas [372 US 387], Halbert [545 US 605] and Taveras [463 F3d 141], are present in the instant case, the Appellate Division was required to assign defendant an attorney upon a showing of indigence in order to enable him to oppose the court’s motion to dismiss his first-tier appeal as of right, and the court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent defendant without considering his indigency or the merits of dismissal warrants reversal and reinstatement of defendant’s appeal.  Upon remittal to the Appellate Division, that court should decide whether defendant is indigent pursuant to CPLR 1101.  If defendant establishes his indigence, the court must assign counsel to litigate the dismissal motion, and the court should determine, in its discretion, whether dismissal is appropriate. appeal, rather than an automatic bar to appeal … . People v Kordish, 252, CtApp 10-17-2013

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Not Effective

In finding the defendant did not effectively waive his right to appeal, the Second Department explained:

…[T]he record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . The defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable, as the record does not indicate that he had ” a full appreciation of the consequences'” of such waiver … . While the defendant signed a written waiver, a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right” … . Accordingly, in the absence of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, the defendant retained his right to challenge the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony… . People v Crawford, 2013 NY Slip Op 06705, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Sexual Offense Convictions Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Too Many Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Proof

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions on sexual offenses as against the weight of the evidence:

The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses failed to provide a credible foundation for the defendant’s convictions due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. * * *

…[T]the prosecution’s witnesses testified that the defendant and the mother separated in 2002, and, at the time, the defendant had already moved out of the home where the abuse allegedly took place. Thus, many of the alleged incidents of abuse took place after the defendant had moved out of the home and no longer had a key to it. From 2003 to 2005, a restraining order that the mother obtained against the defendant was in effect, and the mother confirmed that, during one period of time in 2004, the defendant conducted all of his visits with the children outside of the home. The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was generally inconsistent as to whether, during the other visits, the defendant stayed alone with the children in the mother’s home, or whether the grandmother or the mother was always present. In any event, although the younger stepdaughter alleged that the defendant molested her twice per week between 2000 and 2004, the trial testimony clearly established that the defendant’s access to the children was often limited after he moved out of the mother’s home in 2002.  People v McMitchell, 2013 NY Slip Op 06713, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

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