You are here: / Appeals
, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS FIRST RAISED IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SORA CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, determined the challenge to the legality of defendant’s certification as a sex offender, first raised on appeal to the Appellate Division, was not preserved and the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement did not apply:

Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to … burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony … . … [T]he court … advised defendant that he would have to register pursuant to SORA upon his release from prison. * * *

On appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant argued for the first time that his certification as a sex offender was unlawful because his crime of conviction is not an enumerated registerable sex offense under Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a). * * *

The Appellate Division agreed with defendant that under the “clear and unambiguous” language of Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) “burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable sex offense under SORA” … . * * *

“We have recognized ‘a narrow exception to the preservation rule’ where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record” … . However, “not all claims arising during a sentencing proceeding fall within the exception” … . * * *

… [S]ex offender certification is effectuated by the court pursuant to Correction Law § 168-d and is not addressed in either the Criminal Procedure Law or Title E of the Penal Law. … SORA certification is not part of a sentence and the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement does not apply to challenges to certification as a sex offender. People v Buyund, 2021 NY Slip Op 06529, CtApp 11-23-21

 

,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGEDLY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT, IT WAS AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DELAY THE DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT UNTIL THE TRIAL OR DISPOSITION OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined delaying the damages aspect of the action against a defaulting defendant until the trial or disposition of the action against a non-defaulting defendant was improper under the facts. The Fourth Department noted that it can substitute its discretion for the lower court’s, even where there has been no abuse of discretion by the lower court. The defaulting defendant was an employee of the non-defaulting defendant, YMCA Buffalo Niagara, when he allegedly sexually abused plaintiff. The lawsuit was brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act:

… [Although] a court may, under appropriate circumstances, defer entry of judgment and a determination of damages against a defaulting defendant until resolution of a separately-commenced companion action against non-defaulting defendants, we … agree with plaintiff’s … contention that the court’s decision to do so here constitutes an improvident exercise of its discretion … . We therefore substitute our own discretion “even in the absence of abuse [of discretion]” … .

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that “further delay undermines the purpose of the Child Victims Act, which is to ‘finally allow justice for past and future survivors of child sexual abuse, help the public identify hidden child predators through civil litigation discovery, and shift the significant and lasting costs of child sexual abuse to the responsible parties’ ” … . Given the schedule of the separate action and the accompanying “uncertainty as to when plaintiff’s claims may be resolved against [YMCA Buffalo Niagara], additional delay may hinder [plaintiff’s] efforts to prove damages against defendant and secure a final judgment, particularly considering defendant’s age and the prospect that defendant’s assets may be dissipated in the interim” … . By contrast, we note that the court did not identify any prejudice to YMCA Buffalo Niagara … . “Although judicial economy, which is an important consideration under CPLR 3215 (d) . . . , may favor a single damages proceeding involving both the defaulting and non-defaulting defendants,” we conclude here that “such consideration does not outweigh the significant prejudice that may inure to plaintiff … . LG 46 DOE v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06507, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

A CHALLENGE TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A GUILTY PLEA SURVIVES A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined (1) a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty survives a valid waiver of appeal, and (2) a hearing should have been held on defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea:

Because defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of her plea would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we need not address the validity of that waiver … . We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea without a hearing because the record—specifically, defense counsel’s affidavit swearing that defendant’s plea was coerced—”raises a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to appoint new defense counsel and to rule on defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea following an evidentiary hearing. People v Gumpton, 2021 NY Slip Op 06519, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING IT WAS REVERSING ON WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR THE SAME REASONS IT WAS REVERSING ON LEGAL SUFFICIENCY GROUNDS; THAT CONSTITUTED AN ERROR OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THERE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing People v Romualdo, 2020 NY Slip Op 06559 [188 AD3d 928], Second Dept 11-12-20, remitted the matter for a proper assessment of the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals has the authority to review a weight of the evidence determination when the appellate court failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle. “The Appellate Division’s statement that it was reversing on weight of the evidence grounds for the ‘same reasons’ that it was reversing on legal sufficiency grounds constituted an error of law …”:

The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s [murder] conviction, describing its holding as “on the law and on the facts,” and dismissed the indictment on both legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence grounds … . Both of those determinations were based upon the Appellate Division’s conclusion that “the People presented no evidence placing the defendant at or near the scene of the crime, or linking him in any way to the victim, during the critical time frame in which the murder was believed to have occurred”… . Both holdings were erroneous as a matter of law. * * *

… [A] rational jury could have inferred from the medical evidence presented at trial that the victim was sexually assaulted immediately prior to her death. Inasmuch as defendant’s semen was found on the victim’s genitalia, the semen had not transferred to the victim’s clothing, which was still in a state of disarray when her body was found, defendant lived in close proximity to the crime scene, and defendant falsely denied knowing or having sex with the victim, a rational jury could conclude that defendant was present at the time of the victim’s death and killed the victim during the course of, or immediately after, sexually assaulting her … . Therefore, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction. … People v Romualdo, 2021 NY Slip Op 06430, Ct App 11-18-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED HIS GUILTY PLEA COULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to Supreme Court, determined defendant should be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not informed of the possibility of deportation. The issue was not subject to the preservation requirement for appeal:

… [T]he defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … . Inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a result of his pleas … , the defendant had no “practical ability” to object to the court’s comment about immigration consequences or to otherwise tell the court, if he chose, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the possibility of deportation … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . People v Bamugo, 2021 NY Slip Op 06363, Second Dept 11-17,21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and unwarned statements made by the defendant under custodial interrogation should have been suppressed. Defendant was interrogated about two missing college students. As the questioning proceeded it became apparent defendant was involved in the matter in some way, and eventually she revealed where the students were:

Defendant orally waived her right to appeal and executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. The language in the written waiver is inaccurate and misleading insofar as it purports to impose “an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal” and purports to deprive defendant of her “attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, [as well as] all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal” … . … A “waiver[] cannot be upheld . . . on the theory that the offending language can be ignored and that [it is] enforceable based on the court’s few correctly spoken terms” … . …

… [D]efendant was placed in a conference room and was questioned by an investigator from approximately 3:15 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., another investigator accompanied defendant to the bathroom, and the investigator continued questioning defendant. During that conversation, defendant made admissions demonstrating that she was more involved in the case than she had initially revealed, that she knew who was holding the students, and that one of the students had been shot. … At no time was she ever given Miranda warnings. People v Hughes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06231, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense judgment as a matter of law in this medical malpractice case, determined: (1) although the issues could have been raised in the appeal of the original judgment which was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Second Department exercised its jurisdiction to consider the issues in this appeal from the denial of the motion to reargue; (2) the motion for a judgment as a matter of law was premature (made before plaintiff closed her case) and therefore should not have been granted:

… [A]s a general rule we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so … . Here, the plaintiff appealed from the March 29, 2018 judgment entered in favor of the defendants, and that appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, including that the appeal from the judgment was still pending at the time the notice of appeal was filed from the subject order made upon reargument, we exercise our jurisdiction to review the issues properly raised on the appeal from the order … . …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint were made before the close of the plaintiff’s case, and were not based upon admissions by the plaintiff. Fuchs v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 06153, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION MERGED WITH OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying the merger doctrine and considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the unlawful imprisonment conviction must be vacated:

[Defendant was convicted] of coercion in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, menacing in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving … . * * *

… [U]pon exercising our interest of justice jurisdiction, we conclude that the merger doctrine precludes the defendant’s conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree because the confinement of the complaining witness in the defendant’s car was only the incidental means to the accomplishment of the conduct underlying the counts of which the defendant was acquitted … . Thus, the conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed. The defendant’s unpreserved contention that the merger doctrine applies to other offenses for which he was convicted is without merit … . People v Sims, 2021 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined a detective’s testimony about what a nontestifying accomplice (Andy Dabydeen) said violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. Although defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony, the defendant himself objected after the fact, citing Crawford v Washington, 541 US 51, which preserved the issue for appeal:

After the defendant continued to deny any involvement in the murder, the detective confronted him by saying that “Andy had told us what had happened.” The detective further testified that, shortly thereafter, upon returning from the bathroom, the defendant reacted to that information by stating that he could not believe that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. …

… [W]e find that the defendant’s objection—albeit made after the detective had finished testifying and the People had rested—was sufficiently specific to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause problems attendant to the People’s use, as part of their case-in-chief, of Dabydeen’s out-of-court testimonial statement directly implicating the defendant in the murder. …

This is not to suggest that the People are precluded from giving some context to the defendant’s statement that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. We merely emphasize that the People could have done so without disclosing the substance of Dabydeen’s incriminating statement … . People v Lockley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , , ,

THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined: (1) the issue whether objections to child support rulings must be ruled on within 15 days (Family Court Act 439(a)) will be considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine; (2) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (CPLR 8600, et seq) mother-petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because her action served as a catalyst to this decision enforcing the 15-day rule:

The mother has established that this is not the first time in this case that the issue has arisen. Further, the issue is not likely to be resolved without application of the exception, because the Family Court can so easily obviate it by issuing a decision on the objections, albeit after the expiration of the 15 days. Courts have applied the exception under similar circumstances … . * * *

The statute is mandatory insofar as it plainly states that the court “shall,” within 15 days of an objection to a support award being fully submitted, issue a ruling on it … . * * *

Because the CAJ [Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Family Court] responded to the mother’s petition by assigning a Family Court judge to rule on her objections, and because the CAJ offers no substantial justification for not having enforced Family Court Act § 439(e) before the petition was filed, the matter should be remanded for an assessment of the mother’s attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA. Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06089, First Dept 11-9-21

 

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