You are here: / Appeals
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION WHICH CAME OUT AFTER HER APPEAL BUT BEFORE SHE APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH HELD THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE PROSECUTED BY THE “JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS” UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction based on an appellate decision which came out after her appeal but before she applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. In addition, the Third Department held the Court of Appeals decision which found the statute (Executive Law § 552 (2)) authorizing her prosecution by the “Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs” unconstitutional should not be applied retroactively:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, where the case defendant relies upon — Hodgdon [175 AD3d 65]— had not yet been decided at the time that her direct appeal was perfected, we find that her failure to challenge whether the Justice Center had permission to prosecute her and whether the District Attorney maintained responsibility of the prosecution was justified … . Therefore, County Court abused its discretion in concluding that it was “bound” to deny defendant’s motion under CPL 440.10 (2) (c), without a hearing, on the ground that defendant unjustifiably failed to raise the Hodgdon defense on direct appeal. … [W]e remit the matter to County Court for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5). …

Defendant contends … she should be entitled to the benefit of the decisions in Hodgdon and People v Viviani (36 NY3d 564 [2021]), which found that Executive Law § 552 was unconstitutional to the extent that it empowered the Justice Center with concurrent prosecutorial authority … . * * *

… [T]he holding in Viviani does not go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence … . * * *

… [D]efendant is not entitled to have the new constitutional rule articulated by Viviani applied retroactively to her matter … . People v Rice, 2023 NY Slip Op 01211, Third Dept 3-9-23

Practice Point: Defendant should have been granted a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction based on an appellate decision which came out after defendant’s appeal but before she applied for permission to appeal to the court of appeals.

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals decision which declared the statute under which defendant was prosecuted was not applied retroactively because it did not go to the hear of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence.

 

, , ,

A JUDGE MAY NOT ORDER THAT ONLY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC), AND NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF SURRENDER OR ADOPTION WITH THE CHILD; SUCH AN ORDER INTERFERES WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in a matter of first impression in this neglect proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined Family Court could not order the petitioner (Delaware County Department of Social Services) to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. The attorney for the child (AFC) requested the order which allowed only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child. The Third Department heard the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine (the order had been vacated, but the issue is likely to recur). The Third Department concluded the order could not stand because it interfered with the petitioner’s statutory duties:

Although we recognize that circumstances may arise where it may be appropriate to allow an attorney for children reasonable time to discuss sensitive matters of importance, such as adoption or surrender, with their child-client before anyone else does, Family Court’s order was not a temporal arrangement to allow the AFC an opportunity to broach the issue with the child. Instead, the order was an outright ban on anyone, including petitioner’s caseworkers, having a discussion with the child regarding issues that are central to the child’s permanency (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [c] [1] [ii]).

Although Family Court attempted to differentiate the issues of surrender and adoption as “a legal issue distinguishable from the assessment of the child’s well-being,” the court construed the issues pertaining to the child’s well-being too narrowly, leaving petitioner in an untenable situation…. According to petitioner, for over a year, it was prevented “from speaking with the child to reassess its understanding of the child’s wishes” relative to respondent’s possible conditional surrender and a subsequent adoption of the child — issues that fall squarely into the category of permanency decisions. Although the child has a right to meaningful representation and to learn about legal issues from the AFC (see Family Ct Act § 241 …), attorneys for children cannot transform such responsibility into a roadblock, as occurred here, preventing petitioner from fulfilling its mandates and planning for the child’s permanency and well-being … . Matter of Michael H. (Catherine I.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01119, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Family Court can not order the Department of Social Services to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. Here the attorney for the child (AFC) asked Family Court for the order allowing only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child and the request was granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE REQUIRED 20-DAY NOTICE OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, HE CAN APPEAL THE UPWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL THREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner could appeal the 2006 level three sex offender risk level classification, despite his failure to appear at the hearing, because he was not given 20-days notice prior to the hearing:

Although the hearing took place on June 25, 2003, defendant was only advised of it in a letter dated June 11, 2003.Accordingly, defendant’s due process rights were violated given that he was not afforded the minimum 20-day notice as required by statute … . The People respond that defendant explained in a letter sent after the June 2003 hearing that he chose not to attend that hearing because he did not think he would be classified at risk level three. This letter, however, postdated the hearing and any explanation made therein does not amount to a waiver of the right to appear at the hearing. Furthermore, defendant’s posthearing explanation does not obviate the notice requirements that defendant must be statutorily given prior to the hearing. People v Lockrow, 2023 NY Slip Op 01030, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was not given the required 20-day notice of the upcoming SORA risk level hearing, which violated his due process rights. He therefore could appeal the upward departure to level three.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL; THE APPELLATE COURT CANNOT TREAT THE FAILURE TO RULE AS A DENIAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, determined the trial judge never ruled on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal:

At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing … that the People failed to make a prima facie case with respect to the second count of the indictment. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on that part of defendant’s motion. We lack the power to review defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the second degree because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . People v Desmond, 2023 NY Slip Op 00791, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The trial judge’s failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial which an appellate court can consider; here the matter was remitted for a ruling.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS CUSTODY CASE PRECLUDED APPELLATE REVIEW; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT),

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to Family Court, determined the judge’s failure to make findings of fact in this custody case precluded appellate review:

The court, in the order on appeal, however, failed to make any factual findings whatsoever to support the award of primary physical custody. It is “well established that the court is obligated ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” … . Here, the court completely failed to follow that well-established rule when it failed to issue any factual findings to support its initial custody determination … , nor did it make any findings with respect to the relevant factors that it considered in making a best interests of the child determination … . “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . Matter of Ianello v Colonomos, 2023 NY Slip Op 00767, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Here in this custody case the judge did not make findings of fact, which precluded appellate review. The case was sent back.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION WHEN DEFENDANT SAID HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION INTENTIONALLY; THERE IS NO NEED TO PRESERVE A DEFECTIVE-ALLOCUTION ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of an aggravated family offense by guilty plea, determined the judge should have inquired further when defendant stated he did not intend to violate the order of protection when he sent a letter to the protected person. A defective allocution will be considered on appeal in the absence of preservation:

… [A]fter acknowledging his awareness of the valid and effective order of protection directing him to have no contact with the protected person, defendant stated that he “didn’t intentionally violate” the order of protection by sending the protected person a letter and instead asserted that any violation “was unintentional.” Following an off-the-record discussion between defendant and defense counsel, defendant admitted that sending the letter did, in fact, violate the order of protection, but the court did not inquire, and defendant never clarified, whether his conscious objective was to disobey the order of protection … . Contrary to the People’s assertion, which “conflates the culpable mental states for acts done ‘intentionally’ … and those done ‘knowingly’ … , this is not a case in which defendant’s “further statements removed any doubt regarding th[e requisite] intent” … . People v Vanwuyckhuyse, 2023 NY Slip Op 00754, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The defendant said he did not intend to violate the order of protection during the plea allocution and the judge did not make the required inquiry. An allocution error need not be preserved for appeal by moving to withdraw the plea. The conviction was reversed.

 

, ,

THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF DURESS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF PLEA; CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the plea allocution raised duress as a possible affirmative defense and the judge did not inquire into the validity of the plea. The issue was considered on appeal despite the failure to move to withdraw the plea:

To be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently … . Generally, a defendant must preserve for appellate review a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea … . When, however, a “defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea,” the court has a duty to inquire further to make sure that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea has been intelligently entered … . Where the court failed in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … .

In this case, the defendant’s contention challenging the validity of his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise that issue prior to the imposition of sentence … . However, the County Court’s failure to inquire into the validity of the plea after the defendant’s allocution raised the possibility of an affirmative defense based on duress (see Penal Law § 40.00) permits the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal, and requires reversal of the judgment of conviction … . People v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 00678, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s allocution raised the possibility he had duress as an affirmative defense but the judge made no inquiry into the validity of the plea. Despite the defendant’s failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea, the appellate court reversed his conviction.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION TO A PROBATION VIOLATION INVALID; THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE ADMISSION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge’s failure to inform defendant of postrelease supervision rendered the admission invalid. The issue may be raised on appeal despite the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea:

Defendant contends that his admission was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court failed to inform him at any time that he would be subject to postrelease supervision if the court sentenced him to prison. We agree. The People contend that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his admission is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw his admission, but we reject that contention. Although defendant pleaded guilty to a probation violation, as opposed to a crime, “where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of postrelease supervision during the plea allocution, the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution motion” … . People v Bell, 2023 NY Slip Op 00594, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: Here the judge did not inform the defendant of postrelease supervision before he admitted to a probation violation. The admission was reversed on appeal despite the absence of a motion to withdraw the admission.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WHEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS MADE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED AND PROSECUTED; THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE COUNTY COURT, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined the fact that the judge’s law clerk was District Attorney at the time of defendant’s indictment and prosecution presented the appearance of a conflict of interest:

… [T]he law clerk here does not appear to have been directly involved in defendant’s case during her term as District Attorney, nor do the allegations contained within defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion implicate the law clerk’s conduct in her former capacity as District Attorney. That said, it has been observed that “[a] law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … , and it is well settled that “[n]ot only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well” … . Accordingly, it was an improvident exercise of County Court’s discretion to rule upon defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion under these circumstances … . People v Thornton, 2023 NY Slip Op 00460, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Although the issue was not raised in County Court, the Third Department considered the issue in the interest of justice and reversed the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. The judge’s law clerk was the District Attorney at the time defendant was indicted and prosecuted.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER THE POLICE, WHO DID NOT APPLY FOR A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL UNDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS), THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN UNAUTHORIZED NO-KNOCK ENTRY AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the issue whether the police did not give proper notice to the occupants prior to entering and searching premises was not preserved for appeal. The two dissenters argued the issue can be addressed by the appellate court under the ineffective-assistance argument (no motion to suppress based on failure to provide proper notice before entering) and the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The police did not apply for a no-knock warrant and, according to the dissent, entered the apartment using a battering ram before announcing their presence:

… [T]he record is silent as to what the police said or did prior to effectuating entry into the apartment. Thus, without resort to inappropriate speculation, it simply cannot be concluded from the record before us that the police failed to knock and announce their presence before forcefully entering the apartment. * * *

From the dissent:

In our view, the record confirms, by the police officers’ own trial testimony, that they did not provide any advance notice prior to entering the apartment where defendant was ultimately apprehended. The record shows that members of the involved emergency response team (hereinafter ERT) entered the apartment through a rear door into a kitchen area that led to a living room. When asked how the door was opened, Jason Blowers — a police officer with the City of Johnstown Police Department — explained that “the breacher opened the door, the mechanical breach . . . . He hit the door with a ram.” Sergeant Michael Pendrick, the first member of the ERT to enter the apartment, confirmed as much, testifying: “[a]s we approached the rear apartment door . . . another officer had breached the door, the door popped open.” People v Hayward, 2023 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The majority found the record silent on whether the police, who did not apply for a no-knock warrant, entered the apartment without giving proper notice to the occupants and held the issue was not preserved for appeal. The two-justice dissent argued the issue could be addressed on appeal as ineffective-assistance (failure to move to suppress) and the evidence demonstrated the police entered with a battering ram before announcing their presence.

 

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