You are here: / Appeals
, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, , ,

THE “REFRAIN FROM GANG-RELATED ASSOCIATIONS” PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE STRUCK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH GANGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a probation condition imposed by the court must be stricken because it was not shown to be related to “defendant’s rehabilitative prospects:”​

Defendant’s challenges to two of his probation conditions as unrelated to his rehabilitation do not require preservation and survive his waiver of the right to appeal … . * * *

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken, as there is no evidence that defendant’s crime was connected to any gang activities or that he has any history of gang membership or gang … . Accordingly, this condition was not reasonably necessary to further defendant’s rehabilitative prospects based on his background and proclivities …. . People v Holguin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06141, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal and survive a waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: The appellate courts will strike probation conditions which are not demonstrated to be relevant to the defendant’s offense. Two other decisions, not summarized here, were released this week in which the probation condition requiring defendant to financially support dependents was struck because it was not shown to be relevant to defendant’s rehabilitation for the charged offense. (People v Bonfante, 2025 NY Slip Op 06068, Second Dept 11-6-25;  People v Larkin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 11-6-25)

 

, ,

POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) CAN PROPERLY BE IMPOSED WHERE A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); DEFENDANT WAIVED HER RIGHT TO APPEAL THE SENTENCE AS EXCESSIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined five years post-release supervision (PRS) was properly imposed as part of defendant’s sentence and defendant waived the right to appeal her sentence as excessive. Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to ten years incarceration under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA):​

Defendant does not challenge the carceral component of her sentence. Instead, she asserts that the court had no statutory authority to impose five years’ PRS on a defendant convicted of a class A felony and sentenced under the DVSJA. We may review defendant’s claim that her sentence is illegal even though, as we explain, her appeal waiver is valid … . However, defendant misinterprets the statutory scheme, and her claim boils down to a policy argument best suited for the legislature, not the judiciary. * * *

The legislative history of the DVSJA supports our straightforward reading of the Penal Law, and our conclusion that the legislature only intended to give judges discretion to reduce the periods of incarceration for certain defendants who are domestic violence survivors, not to wholly eliminate PRS in such cases … . * * *

… [T]he court specifically advised defendant that certain issues would survive the waiver, and counsel confirmed that they had reviewed those issues with defendant. The written waiver further clarified that, as explained in defendant’s conversation with the court and counsel, defendant was waiving any claim that her sentence is excessive. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division properly concluded that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her excessive sentence claim. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 05874, CtApp 10-23-25

Practice Point: Post-release supervision (PRS) can properly be imposed where a defendant is sentenced under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT IF HE FAILED TO PAY RESTITUTION HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED; ENHANCED SENTENCE VACATED AND AGREED-UPON SENTENCE IMPOSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s enhanced sentence and imposing the agreed-upon sentence, determined defendant was not given notice that his failure to pay restitution would result in an enhanced sentence. The agreed sentence was 2 to 6 years and the enhanced sentence was 4 to 12 years:

Defendant argues that County Court erred in imposing a prison sentence in excess of that promised in the plea agreement and requests that this Court resentence him to the agreed-upon term of 2 to 6 years in prison, without remanding the matter to County Court. Defendant contends that while payment of restitution was contemplated prior to sentencing, County Court never advised him that if he failed to pay restitution by the sentencing date it could impose an enhanced prison sentence. We agree. Defendant’s argument survives his unchallenged appeal waiver … . However, given that the court’s enhanced sentence was pronounced at the very end of the sentencing proceeding, without advance warning that it was considering an enhanced sentence or even a clear finding that defendant had violated an express condition of the plea agreement, we find that he had no practical ability to raise an objection and, thus, preservation was not required … . Under settled law, “the violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence, and, conversely, a sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed” … . People v Nestler, 2025 NY Slip Op 05852, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria which allow a judge to ignore an agreed-upon sentence and impose an enhanced sentence.​

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED BY A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY LAW; THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Fourth Department, determined the court was without authority to appoint a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The defendant, who was convicted, raised the issue for the first time on direct appeal. The indictment was dismissed:

Defendant was charged in Orleans County with various counts of larceny based on allegations that he improperly sold a vehicle that was given to him for repairs and retained the proceeds. The Orleans County District Attorney moved to be disqualified from the case due to his relationship with the alleged victim. County Court granted the application and appointed a special district attorney pursuant to County Law § 701 (1) (a). That statute provides that when the district attorney is disqualified from acting in a particular case, “a superior criminal court in the county wherein the action is triable may . . . appoint some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney during the absence, inability or disqualification of the district attorney and such assistants as he or she may have.”

It is undisputed that the special district attorney did not have an office in or reside in Orleans County or any adjoining county and therefore did not satisfy the statute’s residency requirement. Although defendant received correspondence during the course of the prosecution that listed addresses for the special district attorney located in Erie County—which does not adjoin Orleans County—defendant did not challenge the special district attorney’s appointment or otherwise raise the issue before the trial court. After defendant was convicted, however, he raised the issue on direct appeal. The Appellate Division agreed with defendant that the court exceeded its authority by appointing a special district attorney who did not satisfy the residency requirement and dismissed the indictment on this ground … .  People v Callara, 2025 NY Slip Op 05739, CtApp 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here defendant was prosecuted and convicted by a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The issue was first raised on appeal. The appellate court properly dismissed the indictment because the lower court did not have the authority to appoint a special district attorney in violation of the residency provisions of the County Law.

 

, ,

THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO PENAL LAW 265.09 (2) DID NOT APPLY TO FIVE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; THE APPEAL OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined several of the additional consecutive five-year sentences pursuant to Penal Law 265.09( 2) were illegal. The court noted that preservation is not required for the appeal of an illegal sentence:

… [Penal Law 265.09(2)] provides in relevant part that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, when a person is convicted of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree as defined in [Penal Law § 265.09 (1)], the court shall impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years to the sentence imposed on the underlying class B violent felony offense where the person convicted of such crime displays a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious injury may be discharged, in furtherance of the commission of such crime” … . …

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 2… and robbery in the first degree under count 5 … . Given that the use or display of a firearm is an element of each of those crimes and “the use or display of that same firearm cannot also be the predicate for criminal [use] of a firearm in the first degree” … , neither of those crimes may serve as “the underlying class B violent felony offense” upon which the court could impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years … .

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 3… . * * * Defendant’s conviction under Penal Law § 265.09 (1) (a) “did not involve the display of a loaded, operable weapon” … , and the victim—the only person other than defendant who was present in the room where the shooting occurred—had no recollection of defendant’s entry into the apartment or of the events that transpired during the shooting that caused his physical injuries … . People v Clea, 2025 NY Slip Op 05590, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the five-year consecutive-sentence enhancement for display of a fireman is not allowed by Penal Law 265.09 (2).

 

,

TO DEFEAT A CPLR 3215(C) MOTION TO DISMISS AN ACTION AS ABANDONED, “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” FOR A DELAY IN MAKING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED, NOT THE CASE HERE; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PARTIES DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO INTENT TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THE MAJORITY REJECTED THE DISSENTERS’ ARGUMENT, IN PART BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD’s) motion to dismiss the action against it by defendant Cliffcrest as abandoned should have been granted. The two dissenters relied on an argument not raised in Supreme Court:

The motion court should have granted HPD’s motion to dismiss the action against it as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c) … . The record does not support a finding that Cliffcrest “[took] proceedings” for entry of a judgment within one year of HPD’s default within the meaning of CPLR 3215(c) and Cliffcrest fails to provide sufficient cause for the delay, as required by the rule. Cliffcrest waited over five years to seek a default judgment against HPD. None of the “proceedings” it cites — Cliffcrest’s responding to discovery requests, engaging in motion practice, and participating in settlement negotiations — was directed at, or pertinent to, the entry of a default judgment against HPD. Nor does Cliffcrest show that it took any relevant proceedings within one year after HPD defaulted.

The dissent relies on an argument not raised. Specifically, Cliffcrest does not contend that it demonstrated “sufficient cause . . . why the complaint should not be dismissed” (CPLR 3215[c]). Instead, Cliffcrest emphasizes that the proceedings demonstrated a lack of intent to abandon its claims. CPLR 3215(c)’s reference to “abandon[ment],” however, is merely descriptive of the statute’s purpose (see id. [“dismiss[al] of the complaint as abandoned”]). Cliffcrest’s general showing of lack of abandonment is therefore insufficient to prevent dismissal when not tethered to the “sufficient cause” provision as a source of authority. Otherwise, and as noted, Cliffcrest unpersuasively argues that the general litigation activities qualified as “proceedings for the entry of judgment” even though none of the proceedings identified occurred within one year of HPD’s default and none were directed at a default judgment’s entry. 938 St. Nicholas Ave. Lender LLC v 936-938 Cliffcrest Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05052, First Dept 9-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the evidence required to defeat a motion to dismiss an action as abandoned.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER’S WITNESSING THE EXCHANGE OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A DRUG TRANSACTION ARREST; BECAUSE THE RECORD EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION, THE MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WAS BEYOND FURTHER REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming Supreme Court’s denial of the suppression motion, determined there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the motion court’s ruling. Therefore the mixed question of law and fact could not be reviewed further by the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether witnessing the exchange of an unidentified object provided probable cause to arrest for a drug transaction:​

The “factors relevant to assessing probable cause include the exchange of currency; whether the particular community has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s experience and training in drug investigations; and any additional evidence of furtive . . . behavior on the part of the participants” … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the absence of a “telltale sign” of a drug transaction is not fatal to a finding of probable cause. As we have explained, “a ‘telltale sign’ of narcotics strongly suggests an illicit drug transaction,” but it is not “an indispensable prerequisite to probable cause” … . Probable cause may also “be found on the basis of ‘indicia of a drug transaction’ known to ‘an experienced officer trained in the investigation and detection of narcotics,’ which include ‘handling an unidentified object in a manner typical of a drug sale'” … .

The testifying officer had formal training and experience in observing narcotics transactions, and he and his partners were stationed in an area known for drug-related activity. … [I]n the six months prior to defendant’s arrest, the testifying officer had made about ten narcotics-related arrests within two blocks of the motel. The officers also saw defendant “engage in [ ] behavior consistent with that of a narcotics seller” … , including nervous glancing, reaching into his waistband without looking down, and two separate interactions with the same woman, each involving an exchange of an object. Although the officers did not identify the object the woman acquired during the second interaction until after defendant’s arrest, the woman’s clenched fist and rapid departure indicated her desire to conceal it. People v Tapia, 2025 NY Slip Op 04940, CtApp 9-11-25

Practice Point: Where an appeal presents a mixed question of law and fact (here, whether there was probable cause for a drug transaction arrest based on the witnessed exchange of an unidentified object), the review by the Court of Appeals il limited to whether the motion court’s ruling has support in the record.​

 

, ,

THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT AND ATTEMPTED ROBBERY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT; THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT DIDN’T HELP; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HE WAS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEO NEAR THE SCENE WEARING DISTINCTIVE RIPPED AND PATCHED PANTS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THE VICTIM OR DEPICTED IN THE INCIDENT VIDEO; THE ARREST WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED AFTER GUILTY PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined defendant was arrested in the absence of probable cause requiring suppression of seized evidence and defendant’s statements. Several arguments raised by the People on appeal were not considered because the arguments were not made below. Defendant was accused of assault and attempted robbery of a woman on the street.. The woman was unable to describe the assailant. Video of the incident did not help. Video near the scene depicted a man with distinctive ripped and patched pants, which led to the arrest of the defendant 10 days later. But there was no evidence the assailant was wearing the distinctive pants:

The detective obtained clearer video that depicted a male individual in distinctive ripped and patched pants near the scene and heading northbound, but that video did not capture the attack (nor any other incriminating behavior, for that matter). The detective concluded that the man in the distinctive pants was the perpetrator, apparently due to temporal and geographical proximity. Notably, when shown stills from the footage, the victim was still unable to recognize defendant as her assailant. The detective did not recollect the complainant stating that her assailant fled northbound; rather, the detective surmised the same from the surveillance videos. * * *

Because DHS arrested defendant without probable cause, all evidence flowing from the arrest, including defendant’s statements and the contents of the shoe box, was unlawfully obtained and must be suppressed … . The People are not entitled to a remand for further suppression proceedings, as they “had a full opportunity to present their case at the original hearing” and refrained from submitting alternative theories for denying suppression … .

Dismissal of the indictment is the appropriate remedy in this case. The People’s remaining evidence — namely, the surveillance videos showing the suspect in the area before and after the attack and Detective Hostetter’s “confirmatory” identification of defendant at the shelter — is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case if the People were to try defendant upon remand. The complainant could not provide a description of her assailant, the assailant is unidentifiable in the videos showing the attack, and defendant’s now-suppressed statements and pants were the only evidence connecting him to the crime scene … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 04526, First Dept 7-31-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty but the indictment was dismissed because his arrest was not supported by probable cause.

Practice Point: If the People were given a full opportunity to present available evidence and to make legal arguments at the motion stage, evidence not presented and arguments not made there will not be considered on appeal.

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY AND WAIVED APPEAL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING HE WILL NOT BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating defendant’s sentence, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined the sentencing judge’s failure to consider defendant’s youthful offender status can be raised in a motion to vacate the sentence, despite the failure to appeal the conviction on that ground. Here defendant pled guilty and waived appeal with the understanding that he would not be afforded youthful offender status:

In this appeal, we must consider whether a defendant who has failed to take a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence may, in the first instance, seek to set aside his or her sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to make a determination as to whether the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment. We hold that, under such circumstances, a defendant may seek to set aside his or her sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20. * * *

Here, as the People conceded in opposition to the defendant’s motion, the defendant was an “eligible youth” (see CPL 720.10). However, despite the defendant’s status as an “eligible youth,” the Supreme Court failed to make the required youthful offender determination at the sentencing proceeding. Since the court was required to make this determination on the record at sentencing, the court’s failure to follow this statutorily-mandated procedure rendered the defendant’s sentence invalid as a matter of law (see id. § 440.20[1] …). People v Steele, 2025 NY Slip Op 04494, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Even where a defendant pleads guilty with the understanding he will not be afforded youthful offender status and waives appeal, the sentencing judge must consider affording defendant youthful offender status. The failure to appeal the conviction is not a bar to a motion to vacate the sentence on this ground.

 

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