You are here: / Appeals
, ,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A RODRIGUEZ HEARING; THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON TRIAL TESTIMONY TO OVERCOME THE SUPPRESSION COURT’S ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined defendant was entitled to a Rodriguez hearing on whether a witness’s identification of the defendant was confirmatory. The Court of Appeals noted that the Appellate Division should not have relied on trial testimony to overcome the suppression court’s error:

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s pretrial request for a hearing pursuant to People v Rodriguez (79 NY2d 445 [1992]), as the prosecutor here offered only bare assurances that the witness was familiar with defendant. Further, the Appellate Division erroneously relied on testimony adduced at trial to overcome the suppression court’s error.

“Thus, the case should be remitted to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether the [photographic] identification procedure was confirmatory. If, after that hearing, the court concludes that the People have not sustained their burden, a Wade hearing should be held and further proceedings, including a new trial, should be had as the circumstances may warrant. If the court concludes that a Wade hearing is not required, the judgment[] should be amended to reflect that result” … . People v Carmona, 2021 NY Slip Op 05390, Ct App 10-7-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER THE ISSUE, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SENTENCE IN THIS DWI CASE WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the case to Supreme Court, determined the trial court must rule on the motion for a trial order of dismissal before the appeal of that issue can be considered. The Fourth Department noted that the sentence imposed in this DWI case was illegal:

… [W]e may not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998] … ), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . …

… [W]e note … that the sentence is illegal insofar as the court directed that defendant serve a term of five years of probation, with an ignition interlock device for a period thereof, consecutive to the indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years on his conviction for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) … . People v Capitano, 2021 NY Slip Op 05225, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

, ,

A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, determined sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney for bringing a frivolous appeal were in order in this divorce proceeding:

… [W]e consider defendant’s request for costs, attorney’s fees, and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. We grant defendant’s request in part and award costs in the form of reimbursement by plaintiff’s attorney, Angelo T. Calleri, for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from the frivolous conduct of Calleri in prosecuting this appeal … and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine such amount … . “[C]onduct is frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . We conclude that Calleri’s appellate brief is replete with arguments that qualify as frivolous under the first paragraph of subdivision (c). Indeed, plaintiff’s frivolous request that we impose sanctions against defendant by itself qualifies as frivolous conduct … .  Marshall v Marshall, 2021 NY Slip Op 05194, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILITY PLEA; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The court noted that the defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude an appeal alleging the guilty plea was not valid:

… [T]he defendant secured new counsel and made a written motion to withdraw his plea a little more than four months after he pleaded guilty. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, without a hearing or any further inquiry into the defendant’s claims. At the subsequent sentencing proceeding, the defendant again asserted his innocence and again asked the court to permit him to withdraw his plea based on his attorneys’ failure to provide meaningful representation. The defendant’s application to withdraw his plea at the sentencing proceeding was based on his statements to the court and his prior evidentiary submissions, which tended to substantiate his contention that he had not understood the concept of constructive possession or the nature of the People’s evidence at the time that he pleaded guilty. These submissions were sufficient to cast doubt on his guilt and the validity of his plea … . The People did not allege any prejudice that would have resulted had the court permitted the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty at that time … . People v Gerald, 2021 NY Slip Op 05130, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, ,

APPELLATE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE ARGUED THAT COUNTY COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION; WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted the writ of error coram nobis and remitted the matter. Appellate counsel should have raised the argument that County Court failed to consider whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender:

… [W]e grant the defendant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis, based on former appellate counsel’s failure to contend on appeal that the County Court failed to determine whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497), CPL 720.20(1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain”… . Here, the record does not demonstrate that the court considered whether to adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender, even though the defendant was eligible … . Although we acknowledge that the Court of Appeals decided Rudolph only shortly before former appellate counsel filed the brief on the appeal, because the holding in Rudolph compels vacatur of the sentence, the standard of meaningful representation required former appellate counsel to argue that, pursuant to Rudolph, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for determination of the defendant’s youthful offender status … . People v Slide, 2021 NY Slip Op 04982, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

, ,

A PSYCHIATRIC EXAM IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF A PROSECUTION AT WHICH DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE EXCLUSION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM THE EXAM WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction, determined the exclusion of defense counsel from the psychiatric exam by the People’s expert was not harmless error:

After defendant provided timely notice that he intended to present psychiatric evidence at trial, he was twice interviewed by a clinical psychologist engaged by the People (see CPL 250.10 [2], [3]). Although defense counsel was present at the first examination, the expert denied defense counsel admittance to the second examination. Over defense counsel’s objection that defendant’s right to counsel had been violated, the expert’s testimony was admitted at trial. On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendant’s constitutional right to counsel had been violated but that the error was harmless … . …

In Matter of Lee v County Ct. of Erie County (27 NY2d 432 [1971]), we held that defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at pre-trial psychiatric examinations “to make more effective [a defendant’s] basic right of cross-examination” … In Lee, we cited to United States v Wade’s (388 US 218 [1967]) definition of a critical stage of the prosecution as “‘any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where’ ‘the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself'” … . We thus held that pretrial psychiatric examinations are a critical stage of the prosecution.

… The People—not the defendant—bear the burden of showing that “there was no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s admission” of that part of the expert’s testimony based on the uncounseled examination “affected the jury’s verdict” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the expert’s testimony at trial was based in part on the examination undertaken in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, and we cannot say that the error was harmless … . People v Guevara, 2021 NY Slip Op 04955, CtApp 9-9-21

 

, ,

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY SERVED BUT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE APPEAL; THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A LATE FILING; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, although the pro se inmate-petitioner did not timely file the notice of appeal, the notice was timely served and the Third Department could have exercised discretion to allow a late filing. The matter was remitted because the Third Department’s decision was silent about the reasons for dismissing the appeal:

… [P]etitioner argues that the Appellate Division should have applied a pro se inmate “mailbox rule” to deem the notice of appeal timely filed upon delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate court.

CPLR 5515 (1) provides that an appeal is taken when, in addition to being duly served, the notice of appeal is “fil[ed] . . . in the office where the judgment or order of the court of original instance is entered.” The CPLR further clarifies that “papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is triable” (CPLR 2102 [a]). Thus, by its express terms, the CPLR indicates that filing occurs when the clerk’s office receives the notice of appeal. Indeed, “filing” has long been understood to occur only upon actual receipt by the appropriate court clerk … . A “mailbox rule” for filing would also contravene the clear distinctions between filing and service drawn by the legislature inasmuch as the CPLR directs that, unlike filing, “service by mail shall be complete upon mailing” (CPLR 2103 [b] [2]). .. * * *

… [T]he legislature has given courts the authority to excuse untimely filing under certain circumstances. CPLR 5520 provides that, “[i]f an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal . . . , but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken . . . may grant an extension of time for curing the omission” (CPLR 5520 [a]). Matter of Miller v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 04954, CtApp 9-9-21

 

, , ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE APPEAL OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the appeal of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level classification could not be heard because the record was not sufficient. The matter was remitted:

“Although the short form order utilized by County Court contains the ordered language required to constitute an appealable paper, the written order fails to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Correction Law § 168-n (3)” … . “The hearing transcript is similarly deficient as it does not contain clear and detailed oral findings to support County Court’s risk level classification” … . The scant record before us is not sufficiently developed to enable this Court to make its own factual findings and legal conclusions — particularly with respect to the number of victims and the points assessed under risk factor three. Accordingly, County Court’s order is reversed, and this matter is remitted for further proceedings. People v Kwiatkowski, 2021 NY Slip Op 04934, Third Dept 9-2-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE 911 CALL WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE CALLER AND THE BASIS FOR THE CALLER’S KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS IRRELEVANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing. Probable cause for the traffic stop was based on a 911 call. But no evidence was presented to demonstrate the reliability of the caller or the basis for the caller’s knowledge. The fact that the relevant evidence was presented at trial did not matter. The appeal focuses on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing:

… [T]he officer’s only justification for the stop was the dispatcher’s report that a 911 caller had asserted that one of the vehicle’s occupants possessed a “long gun.” Initially, defendant claims that the stop was invalid because possession of a “long gun” is lawful in New York. We reject that claim as meritless (see Penal Law 265.00 [22]). However, the People failed to introduce the 911 recording, failed to introduce any evidence indicating whether the 911 caller was an identified citizen informant or an anonymous tipster, and failed to offer any explanation of the basis of the caller’s knowledge. In sum, the People put forward no relevant information concerning the circumstances surrounding the call at the hearing. Contrary to the People’s suggestion that an appellate court can consider evidence subsequently admitted at trial to justify affirmance of an order denying suppression, “the propriety of the denial must be judged on the evidence before the suppression court” … . Therefore, on the record of the suppression hearing, “whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established” … . People v Walls, 2021 NY Slip Op 04949, CtApp 9-2-21

 

, , ,

THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

THIS OPINION WAS VACATED ON JANUARY 28, 2022, AND REPLACED WITH 2022 NY Slip Op 00560

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the police officer’s (Dorchester’s) testimony at the suppression hearing established probable cause to search defendant’s car based upon the smell of PCP, or, as the court described it, “olfactory detection of street-level PCP.” The opinion was as much directed to improprieties in the appellate brief as to  the “olfactory detection of PCP:”

“[A]s soon as I walked up to the vehicle,” Dorchester testified, “I could smell a really strong chemical odor that was familiar to myself as PCP.” Dorchester had received PCP training at the police academy; he regularly received updated training on PCP and other drugs; and he had encountered PCP and its distinctive smell “hundreds” of times over the course of his career as a police officer. Based on his training and experience, Dorchester testified, he immediately recognized the odor emanating from defendant’s vehicle as PCP. When pressed on whether he could have been smelling something else, Dorchester held firm: the smell of PCP, he explained, was “pretty distinct.” * * *

[I]t is astoundingly inaccurate for defendant’s brief to assert that “[t]his is a case of first impression.” Moreover, the representation in defendant’s brief that “none of the Appellate Divisions . . . has ever passed upon the question of whether the smell of PCP may, standing alone, constitute probable cause to search” is an unacceptable dereliction of counsel’s duty of candor to our Court, for the First Department has done precisely that in two separate cases … . And given that Sanchez [168 AD3d 584] involved a car search, the statement in defendant’s brief that “no appellate case law from this state . . . has approved the search of a vehicle based solely on the smell of PCP” is yet another misrepresentation of the caselaw. We take this opportunity to echo the First Department’s monition that “counsel has an obligation to bring adverse authority to [our] attention” … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s appellate brief levels serious allegations of perjury, official misconduct, and federal civil rights violations against officer Dorchester. The record, however, lacks any proof to substantiate appellate counsel’s accusations. It is one thing to suggest that Dorchester’s testimony was legally insufficient to justify the search … . But it is quite another thing to file a brief that directly, repeatedly, and unnecessarily accuses Dorchester of serious crimes without evidentiary support. Counsel’s “baseless assertions are shockingly irresponsible” … . People v Fudge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04801, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

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