You are here: / Appeals
, , ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop at the suppression hearing. The police had a warrant to search defendant’s apartment and anyone in it. Before the warrant was executed, the defendant left the apartment and the SWAT team stopped him. The People relied on the allegation that defendant was violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law at the time of the stop by walking in the middle of the street. The Fourth Department found the evidence of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was insufficient. Therefore the People failed to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct:

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … . Here, the court refused to suppress the physical evidence on the ground that the officers’ observation of defendant walking in the roadway provided probable cause for them to believe that defendant had violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which justified the initial stop and the subsequent pursuit of defendant. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1156 (a) requires that, “[w]here sidewalks are provided and they may be used with safety it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.” Here, when asked at the suppression hearing if he had seen defendant “doing anything illegal,” the testifying police officer responded, “[o]ther than walking down the center of the road, no.” Even assuming, arguendo, that we can infer the presence of a sidewalk based on the officer’s response, we conclude that the People failed to establish that a sidewalk was available and that it could “be used with safety” …, especially when considering that defendant was stopped in January in central New York. Nor did the People establish that defendant, by walking “down the center of the road,” violated section 1156 (b), which requires a pedestrian, where sidewalks are not provided, to “walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic” inasmuch as a pedestrian is only required to do so “when practicable.” Thus, we agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct. People v Montgomery, 2023 NY Slip Op 03606, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing the People have the initial burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. That issue is a question of law which can be reviewed by an appellate court. Here the stop was based on the allegation defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by walking in the middle of the street. The People made no attempt to show there were sidewalks or, if there were sidewalks, that they were passable in January. The Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was not supported by sufficient proof. The People therefore did not prove the legality of the police conduct and the suppression motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution when questioning witnesses. The issue was not preserved but the Second Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,” so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged in its own lines of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the surveillance equipment tracking the defendant, elicited a detailed description of the perpetrator and the bags he was carrying, and what the perpetrator was observed doing on the video surveillance camera, asked leading questions as to what the guard saw and heard as the perpetrator left the store and triggered the store alarm, and noted that when the guard approached the perpetrator and asked for the merchandise back, the guard even said, “please,” but the perpetrator still refused to return the items.

The Supreme Court also repeated the perpetrator’s allegedly threatening language, “[K]eep going or watch what’s going to happen to you,” and noted that it looked like the perpetrator was reaching for something and the guard did not want to find out what it was. During the direct examination of the arresting officer, the court elicited the fact that the officer observed a duffel bag containing the stolen property on the subway platform next to the defendant.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in a running commentary on the testimony against the defendant. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … . People v Pulliam, 2023 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A trial judge can ask questions of witnesses but cannot take on the appearance of an advocate for the prosecution.

 

,

THE WASHINGTON DC ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONVICTION COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a Washington DC offense could not be the basis of a second felony offender adjudication. Although the issue was not preserved, the court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C., cannot be used as a predicate felony in New York (see People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 614-615; see also Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][i]; 160.00, 110.00; DC Code §§ 22-2801, 22-2802). Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter … for resentencing. People v Blaker, 2023 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: The Washington DC attempt to commit robbery conviction could not be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication in New York.

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON DEFAULT, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE ONLY REMEDY; NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the appeal in this custody case, determined (1) no appeal lies from an order issued on mother’s default, and (2) no  appeal lies from an order entered with mother’s consent:

Because the fact-finding order was issued on the mother’s default, it is not appealable as of right and her remedy was to move to vacate (CPLR 5511 …). Although the mother appeared on the final date of the inquest after petitioner’s witnesses had testified, she was not present during the majority of the fact-finding hearing, and her counsel was not authorized to proceed in her absence … . The mother also did not offer any evidence or seek to testify.

Furthermore, no appeal lies from the dispositional order, as it was entered on the mother’s consent and she is therefore not an aggrieved party under CPLR 5511 … .  Matter of P. A. (Joseph M.), 2023 NY Slip Op 03432, First Dept 6-27-23

Practice Point: No appeal lies from an order issued on default. The only available remedy is a motion to vacate the default.

Practice Point: No appeal lies from an order issued on consent because the consenting party is not “aggrieved.”

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE STATED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO AN APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court’s oral colloquy mischaracterized it as an “absolute bar” to the taking of an appeal … . …

Furthermore, the written waiver executed by defendant did not contain any clarifying language to correct deficiencies in the oral colloquy. Rather, it perpetuated the oral colloquy’s mischaracterization of the waiver of the right to appeal as an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and even stated that the rights defendant was waiving included the “right to have an attorney appointed” if she could not afford one and the “right to submit a brief and argue before an appellate court issues relating to [her] sentence and conviction” … . People v Shea’Honnie D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03137, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal is not absolute and the judge’s characterizing a waiver as absolute invalidates it.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM WAS SHOT IN THE BACK DURING A SHOOTOUT WAS NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction, determined the People did not disprove defendant’s justification defense. The fact that, during a shoot-out, the victim was shot in the back was not enough:

“When a defense of justification is raised, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant’s conduct was not justified. In other words, the People must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary” … . In this case, the evidence regarding which man initiated the gunfire was equivocal at best. Valentin, the lone eyewitness, testified that she did not know who fired first. Footage from numerous surveillance cameras, each of which captured only part of the scene, did not answer that question, nor did the ballistic evidence. There was no evidence that defendant approached displaying a firearm. Rather, the evidence strongly suggests that [the victim]  was the first person to do so.

In this case, we do not believe that the mere fact that the victim was shot in the back establishes that defendant was the initial aggressor, or that he did not reasonably believe that deadly physical force was still being used against him at the time he fired the fatal shot. Under the totality of the evidence, the fact that [the victim]  had his back turned to defendant at the moment when he was shot does not establish that he was withdrawing from the gunfight or running away. People v Skeeter, 2023 NY Slip Op 02946, First Dept 6-1-23

Practice Point: When the justification defense is raised, the People must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the fact that the victim was shot in the back during a shoot-out was not enough to disprove the defense.

 

, ,

THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED WAS MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WAS TOLLED BY INCARCERATION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender and remitting the matter for a hearing. determined the People did not submit evidence demonstrating when defendant was incarcerated such that the 10-year look-back period for the prior felony conviction could be calculated. The court noted that the issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [D]efendant contends that he was not properly sentenced as a second felony offender. … [D]efendant was not required to preserve such a claim where, as here, the purported illegality is plain “from the face of the appellate record” … . … [W]e agree with defendant that the record reflects that his April 11, 2011 sentence on his predicate felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the instant offense, which occurred on July 6, 2021 … , and the People failed to meet their burden of showing that the 10-year look-back period was tolled by any periods of incarceration … . At sentencing, defendant admitted to the prior offense, but the People’s predicate felony statement did not set forth defendant’s dates of incarceration … . Since the record fails to disclose the legality of sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, the matter must be remitted for a hearing on this issue and resentencing … . People v McCall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02719, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the People’s failure to submit proof of defendant’s prior incarceration made it impossible to determine whether the 10-year look-back period for a prior felony was tolled. Defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing and resentencing.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department refused to consider a constitutional issue on appeal because the issue was not preserved. Defendant pled guilty in 2016. The defendant argued on appeal that a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling rendered the offense to which he pled guilty, Penal Law 265.03(3), unconstitutional. In order to preserve that issue for appeal, it must have been raised before the trial court in 2016. The US Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]), declared New York’s license requirement for carrying a loaded firearm in public unconstitutional. Defendant pled guilty to possessing a loaded weapon outside his home or business:

Defendant did not preserve his claim that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen …), or his related claim that the ineligibility of persons under 21 (such as himself at the time of the crime) to apply for licenses to carry firearms violates the Second Amendment. “This [preservation] requirement is no mere formalism, but ensures that the drastic step of striking duly enacted legislation will be taken not in a vacuum but only after the lower courts have had an opportunity to address the issue and the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision has been established” … .

“[D]efendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation” on the ground that a constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 265.03(3) would have been futile … . Here, “[a]lthough [Bruen] had not yet been decided, and trial counsel may have reasonably declined to challenge the [constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.03 (3)], defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as [any other] litigant” … . Defendant is essentially making the argument that an “appellant should not be penalized for his failure to anticipate the shape of things to come,” but the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected that argument … . This preservation principle applies to constitutional claims … .

As an alternative holding, we find that on the present record, defendant has failed to establish that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional. People v Adames, 2023 NY Slip Op 02623, Fist Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Even if there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of a statute at the time the offense is before the trial court, in order to preserve the constitutional issue it must be raised in the trial court. Here defendant argued a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling finding New York’s firearm licensing requirement unconstitutional rendered the possession-of-a-weapon statute to which he pled guilty in 2016 unconstitutional. The First Department held the issue was not preserved because it was not raised in the trial court in 2016.

 

, , , ,

THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THAT DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE IS THE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, NOT THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE HOMICIDE OCCURRED; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department (1) granted the writ of coram nobis based upon appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue, and (2) ordered a new trial on the second degree murder charge because the jury instruction on depraved indifference was defective. Although the issue was not preserved, the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice:

Defendant asserts that County Court’s instructions to the jury regarding depraved indifference murder were consistent with the overruled objective standard set forth in People v Register (60 NY2d 270 [1983] …), and therefore the court’s instructions failed to explain the requisite culpable mental state as required by People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]). We agree. In discharging its duty to deliver a charge to the jury, “[a] court must instruct the jury regarding both the ‘fundamental legal principles applicable to criminal cases in general’ and those ‘material legal principles applicable to the particular case’ ” (… CPL 300.10 [1], [2]). At the time of defendant’s trial, the Court of Appeals had already held that “depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” … . As a result, “under Feingold, it is not the circumstances under which the homicide occurred that determines whether [a] defendant is guilty of depraved indifference murder, but rather [the] defendant’s mental state at the time the crime occurred” … .

Upon our review of the record, which reflects that County Court had twice instructed the jury with the overruled objective standard, “the jury charge did not unambiguously state that depraved indifference was the culpable mental state for the crime with which defendant was charged, [and therefore] we cannot conclude that the jury, hearing the whole charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at a decision” … . People v Weaver, 2023 NY Slip Op 02352, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The depraved indifference jury instruction was similar to the overruled objective standard requiring a new trial. Depraved indifference is the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime, not the circumstances of the commission of the homicide.

Practice Point: Although the issue was not preserved, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it on appeal. Here the writ of coram nobis was granted, the conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S “PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD” CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON THE LAW; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A “SEX OFFENDER” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that if the underlying conviction has been reversed and the indictment dismissed it can no longer be the basis for classifying the defendant as a “sex offender:”

While this appeal was pending, this Court reversed the judgment convicting defendant of eight counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child as a sexually motivated felony (Penal Law §§ 130.91, 263.15) on the law and dismissed the indictment … .

A “sex offender” includes a person who is convicted of an offense described in Correction Law § 168-a (2) or (3). However “[a]ny [such] conviction set aside pursuant to law is not a conviction” for purposes of the statute (§ 168-a [1]; see § 168-d [1] [a]). Inasmuch as defendant’s judgment of conviction has been “set aside pursuant to law” (§ 168-a [1]) by reversal of this Court …, defendant does not qualify as a “sex offender” within the meaning of SORA, and the risk level determination must be vacated … . People v Congdon, 2023 NY Slip Op 02228, Fourth Dept 4-28-23

Practice Point: Where a sexual-offense conviction has been reversed on the law and the indictment dismissed, the defendant cannot be classified as a “sex offender.”

 

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