You are here: / Appeals
, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS RELATING TO THE CODEFENDANT’S POSSESSION AND FIRING OF A WEAPON DURING A ROBBERY AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT WERE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED UPON THE CODEFENDANT’S GETTING INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WITH THE WEAPON WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment (stemming from a robbery by the codefendant) was legally insufficient, and the conviction of another possession of a weapon charge (stemming from the codefendant’s getting into defendant’s car after the robbery) was against the weight of the evidence. Shots were fired by the codefendant during the robbery. The defendant was not with the codefendant during the robbery. Then the codefendant, still in possession of the firearm, got into defendant’s car which was parked a couple of blocks away from the robbery scene and defendant drove away with the codefendant. There was no evidence the defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to commit the robbery:

… [T]here is no evidence that defendant and the codefendant were together earlier on the day of the robbery and shooting, no evidence that defendant had prior knowledge either that the codefendant would be armed that day or that he was intending to rob someone, and no evidence that defendant and the codefendant had an ongoing relationship … . * * *

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant had any knowledge of the codefendant’s possession of a firearm prior to the shooting or that defendant somehow “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided [the codefendant] to engage in” the reckless shooting at the vehicle in which the victim was riding … . * * *

… [A]lthough the evidence that defendant knew who the codefendant was prior to the robbery provides a rational basis for questioning defendant’s credibility, we conclude … that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, finding himself in the presence of a man with a loaded weapon, willingly “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided” the codefendant’s possession of that weapon … , or that defendant “shared a ‘community of purpose’ with [the codefendant]” … . People v Hawkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

, , , ,

THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure file an affidavit of service after serving the warrant and notice of eviction did not affect the validity of the service of the warrant of eviction which triggers the 14-day waiting period before execution of the warrant. The court noted that the matter was moot because the petitioner was subsequently evicted based on a different warrant, but the matter should be heard on appeal because the circumstance is likely to recur. The two dissenters argued the mootness of the matter precluded appeal:

… [T]he issuance of a warrant is the court’s last act in a summary proceeding, as denoted by the phrase, “Upon rendering a final judgment for [the owner], the court shall issue a warrant” (RPAPL 749 [1]). The execution of the warrant terminates the lease … . Likewise, the execution of the warrant terminates the summary proceeding and the jurisdiction of the court …  Because the court no longer has jurisdiction, the filing of the affidavit of service is superfluous. This stands in stark contrast to the purpose of the affidavit of service at the commencement of the summary proceeding, where it suffices as proof that the party was properly served pursuant to law, as proper service is required to bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court … .

… [W]e find that filing the affidavit of service at the conclusion of service of a warrant of eviction is not required, and the 14-day notice begins the day following the date of service, posting or mailing, whichever is later … . Matter of Dixon v County of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 3-25-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE USED DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE AGAINST HIM IN THEIR DIRECT CASE; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the People “improperly used [defendant’s] pretrial silence against him in their direct case.” The decision does not explain the facts. Although the error was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

“[I]t is a well-established principle of state evidentiary law that evidence of a defendant’s pretrial silence is generally inadmissible” … . Here, as the defendant correctly contends, the People improperly used his pretrial silence against him on their direct case … . Since this evidence was used by the People on their direct case, their reliance upon cases in which “conspicuous omissions from the defendants’ statements to police” had properly been used during cross-examination of the defendants to impeach the credibility of their exculpatory trial testimony is misplaced … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the error in admitting evidence of the defendant’s pretrial silence during their direct case was not harmless … . Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review … , we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and on that basis, reverse the judgment and remit the matter … for a new trial. People v DeLaCruz, 2021 NY Slip Op 01785, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS A CONTINUING CRIME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED AS A SINGLE COUNT, NOT FOUR COUNTS; AN OBJECTION OR A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN ERROR AFTER A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent should have been suppressed, but the error was harmless. In addition the Fourth Department dismissed three counts of criminal possession of a weapon because all four counts related to the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. The court also noted that if the trial court gives a curative instruction after an objection, another objection or a motion for a mistrial is necessary to preserve the issue for appeal:

… [D]efendant told the police three times that he did not wish to speak to them. We conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is supported by the record with respect to the first such instance, because in that instance he “did not clearly communicate a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely” … , “especially in light of his continued participation in the conversation” … . We further conclude, however, that the remainder of the court’s determination is not supported by the record, inasmuch as, twice more during the questioning, “defendant said that he did not want to talk about [the crimes], thus unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent” … . Consequently, the court was required to suppress the statements that defendant made after invoking his right to remain silent for the second time. * * *

Defendant … contends in his main brief that the court erred in refusing to dismiss various counts of the indictment charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) inasmuch as the indictment charged him with multiple counts of that crime based on his commission of a singular continuing offense. We agree. “An indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, the indictment charged defendant with four separate counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) for the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. We conclude that such possession “constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once” … . Consequently, we affirm that part of the judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) in count 17 of the indictment, and we modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting him of that crime under counts 8, 11, and 16 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Johnston, 2021 NY Slip Op 01632, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s convictions for criminal use of a firearm and criminal possession of weapon because the proof of constructive possession was legally insufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction of the counts of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Those counts were based on defendant’s constructive possession of a rifle that was found in the house after the police entered. The People failed to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over [the rifle] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” to establish that she had constructive possession of it … . People v Lora, 2021 NY Slip Op 01597, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the case for a ruling on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal. An appellate court cannot consider a motion not ruled upon:

Defendant … contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to all counts. At the close of proof, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal, and the court reserved decision. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on defendant’s motion (cf. CPL 290.10 [1]). Thus, we 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], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), 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 … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 01675, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID AND THE SENTENCE WAS UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and his sentence was unduly harsh. The sentences were modified to run concurrently, not consecutively:

We agree with defendant that the purported waiver of the right to appeal is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant “understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived” … . Here, County Court provided no oral explanation of the waiver of the right to appeal and the written waiver executed by defendant “mischaracterized the waiver of the right to appeal, portraying it in effect as an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal” … . We note that the better practice is for the court to use the Model Colloquy, which “neatly synthesizes . . . the governing principles” … . People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 01666, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have deferred o the judgment of the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) which allowed the construction of a 55 story condominium building. At issue was an ambiguous Zoning Resolution and the relationship between zoning lots and tax lots. The First Department held that the BSA had the necessary expertise to interpret the relevant statute and Supreme Court should have allowed the BSA’s interpretation to stand. In addition, the First Department found that the mootness doctrine had not been waived and the doctrine applied to the appeal because the building was fully completed and so steps to halt construction had been taken during the lengthy litigation:

The BSA’s interpretation of the relevant subdivision was “neither irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with the governing statutes” … . It rationally interpreted the resolution and properly considered Amsterdam’s reliance on the DOB’s [NYC Department of Building’s] longstanding Minkin Memo and the history of the block, as several other buildings on the block were issued certificates of occupancy, even though they also include partial tax lots. “When an agency adopts a construction which is then followed for ‘a long period of time,’ such interpretation ‘is entitled to great weight and may not be ignored'” … . …

“[T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy”… . In the construction context, “several factors [are] significant in evaluating claims of mootness[,] [c]hief among them [being] a challenger’s failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation” … . Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01228, First Dept 3-2-21

 

,

THE ROBBERY COULD NOT BE COMMITTED WITHOUT COMMITTING THE ASSAULT; ASSAULT COUNT DISMISSED AS MULTIPLICITOUS; ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction, determined the robbery first and assault first counts were multiplicitous. The redundant count was dismissed in the interest of justice (error was not preserved):

“An indictment is multiplicitous when two separate counts charge the same crime” … . “Multiplicity does not exist where each count requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not” or where “a conviction on one count would not be inconsistent with acquittal on the other” … . “If an indictment is multiplicitous it creates the risk that a defendant will be punished for, or stigmatized with a conviction of, more crimes than he actually committed” … . Here, the record reflects that the jury charges regarding the count of assault in the first degree and the count of robbery in the first degree were essentially identical since one cannot commit robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15(1) without simultaneously committing assault in the first degree under Penal Law § 120.10(4) … . As such, those charges were multiplicitous … . Although the dismissal of the multiplicitous count will not affect the duration of the defendant’s sentence of imprisonment, it is nevertheless appropriate in this case to dismiss the count charging assault in the first degree in consideration of the stigma attached to the redundant convictions … . People v Edmondson, 2021 NY Slip Op 08201, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

, ,

RPAPL 1304 AND 1302-a DO NOT APPLY WHERE THE LOAN SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE IS NOT A “HOME LOAN;” COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FORECLOSURE BUT FAILURE TO COMPLY CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF DEFAULT CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The Second Department noted: (1) RPAPL 1304 (re: notice) and 1302-a (re: standing) do not apply where the subject loan is not a “home loan” because the property was not defendant’s principal dwelling;  (2) compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1303 is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, but the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; (3) the failure to provide notice of default as required by the mortgage cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Gayle, 2021 NY Slip Op 08194, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

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