You are here: / Appeals
, ,

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

 

,

THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROMISED SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the plea was invalid because the plea agreement could not be fulfilled. Defendant was promised participation in the shock incarceration program, but a prior violent felony conviction rendered him ineligible. The court noted that the argument the plea was not voluntary (because the promise could not be fulfilled) was not preserved for appeal by a postallocution motion. The appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

There is no dispute that, in light of defendant’s prior violent felony conviction, he was not in fact eligible for participation in a shock incarceration program … . Nor is there any question that a judicial mandate for shock incarceration was part and parcel of defendant’s plea agreement … . “A guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … . As the promise made here cannot be honored, and given defendant’s insistence that his plea was involuntary, we deem vacatur of the plea and remittal to County Court for further proceedings to be the appropriate remedy  … . People v Regan, 2021 NY Slip Op 06007, Third Dept 11-4-21

 

, ,

ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY; SEVERAL CONVICTIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on several counts, determined the evidence the robbery complainants suffered physical injury was legally insufficient, and the weakness of the identification evidence rendered several convictions against the weight of the evidence:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Here, both complainants testified at trial that they were hit from behind on the head. Neither of the complainants sought medical attention. One complainant testified that he had pain that lasted two days, and did not testify that he took any medication to treat his pain. The other complainant testified that his pain lasted for about one week and that he treated it with ice and Advil. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence that either of the complainants suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) … . Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree … .  * * *

Neither of the complainants who were robbed on February 28, 2016, was able to identify the defendant as one of their assailants, and their descriptions of their assailants as young Hispanic/Latino men about five foot six inches tall wearing dark clothing was not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that the defendant committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. The modus operandi of the crimes committed on February 28, 2016, and February 29, 2016, was likewise not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that, because the evidence supported an inference that the defendant committed the February 29, 2016 crimes, he also committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 05990, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS PRETEXTUAL, OSTENSIBLY BASED ON A BURNED-OUT LICENSE-PLATE LIGHT; BUT THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE CANINE SNIFF BASED UPON A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS BEYOND REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the canine sniff was justified by a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The traffic stop was pretextual, ostensibly based on a burned-out license-plate light:

In the course of a stop predicated on the observation of traffic violations … defendant consented to a search of the backseat of his vehicle. Instead of conducting that search, the police officer walked his canine around the exterior of the vehicle and, in mere seconds, the canine alerted to the trunk. Defendant argues that law enforcement lacked founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and, thus, unlawfully conducted the exterior canine sniff search.

A canine sniff search of a vehicle’s exterior is lawful if police possess a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … . Determinations regarding the existence of a founded suspicion of criminality involve mixed questions of law and fact … . Therefore, our review is “limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …

Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, including the officers’ observations prior to and during the stop, there is record support for the determination that a founded suspicion of criminal activity existed here and, thus, the issue is beyond further review … .

From the dissent:

Mr. Blandford’s case illustrates a troubling aspect of police behavior: law enforcement can pursue someone they suspect of criminal behavior without a founded suspicion of criminality, wait for the right moment to stop that person for a minor traffic infraction, and then serve up a stew of flavorless facts to transform a stop in which they have no intrinsic interest into the search they sought before they had any evidentiary basis to suspect wrongdoing. Although this case illustrates that problem, its resolution should be much simpler than resolution of the systemic problem: here, the officers did not possess information sufficient to justify the canine search. People v Blandford, 2021 NY Slip Op 05619, CtApp 10-14-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS UNENFORCEABLE; “DIFFICULTIES” BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND TWO ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT HIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEFENDANT’S FORFEITURE OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AS THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD RULED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid and the trial judge had violated defendant’s right to counsel by essentially forcing defendant to represent himself after several attorneys had withdrawn. Of all the attorneys who had withdrawn, only two cited difficulties with the defendant. The cited “difficulties” were defendant’s “raised voice” and “lack of cooperation.” There were no allegations of threats or abusive conduct. The other attorneys had withdrawn citing a conflict of interest, illness and leaving the state:

… [D]efendant’s waiver in the case before us did not contain “clarifying language . . . that appellate review remained available for certain issues” … . Indeed, the written appeal waiver and the colloquy utterly failed to indicate that some rights to appeal would survive the waiver. Moreover, the written waiver implied that defendant was completely waiving his right “to prosecute [an] appeal as a poor person, and to have an attorney assigned” if indigent.

Defendant’s appeal waiver thus mischaracterized the nature of the waiver of appeal by suggesting that the waiver included an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief … . * * *

There may be circumstances where a defendant who refuses to cooperate with successive assigned attorneys is ultimately deemed to have forfeited the right to assigned counsel, although such an individual must be afforded the opportunity to retain counsel. … There is record evidence of only two attorneys who asked to be relieved due to difficulties with defendant. … County Court’s own orders relieving Miosek, Taylor, Carlson, and Scott cited conflict of interest, illness, or departure from the state, not attorney-client animosity. Such factors were beyond defendant’s control. People v Shanks, 2021 NY Slip Op 05450, CtApp 10-12-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS COERCED BY THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A HEAVIER SENTENCE IF CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was induced to enter the plea by a threat to impose a heavier sentence after trial. The defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, but the appeal was heard in the interest of justice:

… [D]efendant contends that his plea was rendered involuntary due to statements made by County Court during the plea colloquy indicating that the court would impose the maximum sentence and direct that it run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence if he were convicted at trial. * * *

… [I]t is well settled that a defendant “may not be induced to plead guilty by the threat of a heavier sentence” if he or she decides to proceed to trial … . … [T]he court’s comments about sentencing were not merely a description of the range of the potential sentences; instead, they conveyed to defendant the court’s intent to impose the maximum punishment at sentencing if he proceeded to trial and lost. That constitutes coercion, rendering the plea involuntary … . People v Thigpen-Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 05429, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

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