You are here: / Appeals
,

THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE LESSER COUNT; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s attempted assault conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the jury instructions did not make it clear that if defendant was acquitted of the top count (attempted assault first) based upon the justification defense, it must not consider the lesser count (attempted assault second). Defendant was acquitted of attempted assault first and convicted of attempted assault second. Although defense counsel did not object to the jury instruction, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

The trial court instructed the jury that defendant had raised justification as a defense with respect to counts one and two and stated that the People were required to prove three elements to establish defendant’s guilt on count one, including “that defendant was not justified.” With respect to count two, the court stated that defendant had also raised the defense of justification. The court stated that as an element of count two the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant was not justified.” * * *

The trial court here did not give the required Velez [131 AD3d 129] instruction. … [T]he trial court indicated to the jury that the attempted first-degree and second-degree assault charges … were wholly independent, even if the prosecution had not disproved justification as to the greater charge. The trial court … charged justification separately with respect to the two counts with no mention on the verdict sheet that acquittal on the greater charge would necessitate an acquittal on the lesser charge … . The court compounded the error by giving the same erroneous instruction in response to a note from the jury. People v Herrera, 2021 NY Slip Op 01148, First Dept 2-23-21

 

,

SNATCHING A PURSE DANGLING FROM THE VICTIM’S ARM DID NOT INVOVLE THE PHYSICAL FORCE NECESSARY FOR ROBBERY THIRD, RENDERING THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s robbery 3rd conviction to petit larceny, determined that the physical force element was not involved rendering the conviction against the weight of the evidence:

Judgment * * * unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the robbery conviction to petit larceny and reducing the sentence on that conviction to time served …. .

Defendant’s conduct in snatching the purse that was dangling from the victim’s arm did not involve the physical force required to sustain a conviction of robbery (see People v Dobbs, 24 AD3d 1043 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Middleton, 212 AD2d 809, 810 [2d Dept 1995]; compare People v Santiago, 62 AD2d 572, 579 [2d Dept 1978], aff’d 48 NY2d 1023 [1980]). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and that verdict was against the weight of the evidence … . People v Kourouma, 2021 NY Slip Op 01011, First Dept 2-16-21

 

,

THE TRANSCRIBED RECORD IS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RECORD COULD NOT BE RECONSTRUCTED; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, holding the case and reserving decision, remitted the matter for reconstruction of the record which was missing several vital parts:

… [M]issing and otherwise defective transcripts from the trial preclude appellate review of defendant’s conviction. Indeed, the present state of the record on appeal is “deplorable” … inasmuch as it is missing, inter alia, three days of jury selection, opening statements, summations, final jury instructions, County Court’s handling of a jury note, and the verdict. In addition, the transcription of the testimony of some of the witnesses includes irregularities such as notations stating “omitted,” “untranscribable,” and “blah, blah,” and unintelligible strings of characters that appear to be in code. We reject defendant’s contention, however, that summary reversal and a new trial is the appropriate remedy at this point. The “loss of reporter’s minutes is rarely sufficient reason in itself for reversing a conviction” … . The Court of Appeals has held that “the right of a defendant to a fair appeal, or for that matter a fair trial, does not necessarily guarantee him [or her] a perfect trial or a perfect appeal” … . “To overcome the presumption of regularity, a defendant must show not only that minutes are missing, but also ‘that there were inadequate means from which it could be determined whether appealable and reviewable issues were present’ ” … . It is only when a defendant shows that a reconstruction is not possible that a defendant is entitled to summary reversal and a new trial … .

Here, we conclude that defendant failed to establish that alternative means to provide an adequate record are not available … .There is no indication that defendant’s former attorneys could not participate in a reconstruction hearing, despite the fact that one of them is now employed by the District Attorney’s Office. There is also no indication that the now-retired trial judge could not participate as well … . People v Meyers, 2021 NY Slip Op 00919, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA THAT HIS SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVSION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE PLEA; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR WAS NOT NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been informed that postrelease supervision (PRS) would be part of his sentence. Under the circumstances preservation of the error for appeal was not necessary:

Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant entered his plea in exchange for a promise of youthful offender adjudication and a sentence of probation. Following the entry of the plea, the court informed defendant that, if he violated the terms of the plea agreement, the court would “not keep the promise [it] made regarding [his] sentence” and that it could “impose a much more significant or higher sentence.” The court did not specify what that higher sentence could entail, nor did it mention the possibility of postrelease supervision (PRS).

Prior to sentencing, defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement when he failed to cooperate with the probation department and was arrested on new felony charges. The court held a hearing pursuant to People v Outley (80 NY2d 702 [1993]) and determined that there was a valid basis on which to enhance the sentence. The prosecutor then requested that the court sentence defendant as an adult and impose a sentence of 15 years of incarceration with five years of PRS. The court imposed a determinate sentence of 7½ years of incarceration plus five years of PRS.

The court was required “to advise defendant that his enhanced sentence would include PRS, and was also required to specify the length of the term of PRS to be imposed” … . Although defendant did not object to the imposition of PRS or move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, this case falls under an exception to the preservation rule inasmuch as “[t]he prosecutor’s mention of PRS immediately before sentencing was not the type of notice under People v Murray (15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue” … . People v Stanley, 2021 NY Slip Op 00924, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND PARAPHERNALIA IN AN APARTMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a bench trial, determined the evidence that defendant constructively possessed drug and paraphernalia was insufficient. The “possession” convictions, therefore, were against the weight of the evidence:

Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time the police executed the search warrant, no other evidence was presented “to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that he regularly frequented it” … . Two of the police officers testified that they did not discover anything that belonged to defendant on the premises. The clothing, cell phone, and identification found on the premises belonged instead to other men who were present in the apartment during the execution of the search warrant. Photographs found on the premises included the other men but not defendant. While defendant admitted that he had been at the apartment on one other occasion, the evidence did not otherwise specifically connect defendant to the apartment in which the contraband was found. We thus conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion and control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 00923, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH AN INDICTMENT NEED NOT ALLEGE ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY TO BE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT ACTED AS A PRINCIPAL THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY; THE FAILURE TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY HERE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the failure to instruct the jury on accessorial liability rendered the conviction against the weight of the evidence. The defendant and a companion were involved in an altercation with the victim. The companion slashed the victim and struck the victim with a baseball bat. There was no evidence defendant attacked the victim. The court noted that the indictment need not allege accessorial liability to be legally sufficient, but the jury must be instructed on the theory where there is no evidence a defendant acted as a principal:

The circumstances supported the inference that defendant was guilty of acting in concert in the attack, but undisputedly failed to support liability as a principal, that is, for personally attacking the victim. However, the prosecutor did not request, either before or after the court’s charge, that the court instruct the jury regarding accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00), and the court did not give such an instruction.

Because there is “no legal distinction between liability as a principal or criminal culpability as an accomplice” … , an indictment need not contain any language relating to accessorial liability. However, this does not mean that a conviction may be sustained on an acting-in-concert theory when no such theory was submitted to the jury … . People v Ballo, 2021 NY Slip Op 00810, First Dept 2-9-21

 

, ,

WHETHER THE HOUSE FIRE WAS DELIBERATELY SET WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE INSURANCE-FRAUD OFFENSES STEMMING FROM OVERSTATING THE VALUE OF DESTROYED ITEMS AND MAKING CLAIMS FOR ITEMS DEFENDANT DID NOT OWN OR POSSESS; THEREFORE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ARSON INVESTIGATOR’S TESTIMONY OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE EFFECT; ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the arson investigator’s testimony the fire had been deliberately set was irrelevant to the insurance-fraud offenses and was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. The defendant was charged with making false insurance claims for objects alleged to be lost in the house fire:

… [T]he investigator’s conclusion was highly prejudicial because it allowed the jury to speculate that defendant burned the house down with all of her possessions inside of it in order to collect the insurance money, which, if true, would be conclusive of her alleged intent to defraud. That prejudice was compounded by the limiting instructions that the court provided to the jury after opening statements. Inasmuch as the court had concluded prior to trial that the evidence in question was relevant and admissible for the purpose of completing the narrative of events, the court appropriately instructed the jury that the evidence would be received only for that limited purpose and, consistent with defendant’s request, also instructed the jury that she had not been charged with arson. However, the court further instructed the jury that, “every time you hear the word arson, . . . you should be thinking about not tying the arson to [defendant].” We conclude that the further instruction, if anything, had the effect of linking defendant to the arson in the minds of the jurors. Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was also compounded by the court’s failure to issue appropriate limiting instructions when the evidence in question was admitted and during the final charge to the jury … . Although defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the content or timing of the limiting instructions … we exercise our power to review in the interest of justice her contentions in those respects … . People v Murray, 021 NY Slip Op 00722, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, , ,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S DECEDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE CAR ACCIDENT EVEN IF THE PROPER W BEAM AS OPPOSED TO THE IMPROPER BOX BEAM HAD BEEN ERECTED AS A BARRIER ACROSS THE CLOSED BRIDGE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IMPROPERLY APPLIED A “BUT FOR” STANDARD OF CAUSATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim on the ground that claimant’s decedent would have been killed in the car crash even if the barrier the car struck was a proper W beam as opposed to an improper steel box beam. The beams were erected across a closed bridge and claimant’s decedent was a passenger in the convertible which struck and passed under the box beams at both ends of the bridge. The dissenters argued that, upon remittal after a reversal in the first appeal, the Court of Claims was called upon to determine if the box beam was a dangerous condition which was a proximate cause in aggravating the injuries and did not do so. The dissenters noted that claimant’s decedent’s head injuries occurred when the car passed under the second box beam and he survived for 18 hours after the accident:

… [W]e remitted the matter to the Court of Claims to determine “whether the steel box beam was a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death” … . …

… [W]e conclude that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s determination that the steel box beam was not a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death. Claimant’s witnesses testified with respect to the type of barrier that defendants were required to use to block access to the bridge, i.e., a W-beam. Claimant also presented evidence that decedent’s impact with a W-beam would have led to the same result, i.e., a fatality.

FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]he majority improperly elected to apply a “but for” standard of causation, rather than considering whether the negligence was a proximate cause of injury. In our view, applying a “but for” causation standard “would relieve from liability a negligent actor if the same harm might have been sustained had the actor not been negligent; yet the law is clear that that fact may be considered in fixing damages but does not relieve from liability” …  . Reames v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT TOOK THE GUN FROM THE VICTIM AND KILLED THE VICTIM IN SELF DEFENSE; THE DEFENDANT’S BRIEF, TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON AFTER THE SHOOTING DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, over a dissent, determined the temporary possession of the gun did not meet the criteria for criminal possession of a weapon second degree. The gun belonged to the victim. During a struggle with the defendant the gun fell to the ground. Both the defendant and the victim dove for the gun. The defendant retrieved it and shot the victim. The defendant held on to the gun very briefly and then disposed of it. The defendant was acquitted of murder:

As reflected by the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of the murder charge, based upon the defense of justification, the defendant initially took possession of the gun with a valid legal excuse … , and there is no evidence that the defendant retained the gun beyond opportunities to hand it over to the authorities … . The cases cited by our dissenting colleague are clearly distinguishable, involving situations where a defendant retained possession of a gun until it was found by the police … , retained access to the gun after hiding it in a secure location … , acted furtively when confronted by police with a weapon on his person … , or disposed of the weapon during hot pursuit by the police … .

Indeed, our dissenting colleague acknowledges that turning the gun over to authorities is not an element of temporary and lawful possession … . Here, the defendant retained the gun for a brief period while he looked for his brother, and, not finding him, unloaded the gun and disposed of it in the trash. At trial, when he was asked about his intention, the defendant responded, “[m]y intention this is not my gun. Why hold it.” The evidence indicated that the defendant retained the gun for a sufficient time to dispose of it. The fact that he disposed of the gun without turning it into the authorities did not convert his temporary and lawful possession of the gun into illegal possession … . People v Rose, 2021 NY Slip Op 00577, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

,

CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined CPLR 205 (a), which allows an action to be refiled within six months of dismissal under certain conditions, does not apply to motions. Here the plaintiff sought to bring a second motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1371 after the first was deemed untimely because it was not served within the 90-day time-frame. The dissenter argued the defendants were not aggrieved by the lower court’s order which stayed the proceedings for further submissions and therefore could not appeal:

As an initial matter, plaintiff contends that, because Supreme Court did not ultimately rule on the relief sought — namely a deficiency judgment — and instead issued a stay to allow further submissions from the parties, defendants are not aggrieved by the ruling and the appeal should be dismissed. … We disagree. A party is aggrieved when the court denies the relief it requested or grants relief, in whole or in part, against a party who had opposed the relief … . Here, defendants opposed plaintiff’s second motion for a deficiency judgment as untimely. Had Supreme Court agreed, the case would have been dismissed outright, and defendants would have been relieved of any deficiency judgment. Instead, they continue to be involved in litigation and remain exposed to the potential of said judgment and the financial consequences attendant thereto. Defendants are therefore clearly aggrieved by the finding of timeliness by Supreme Court. * * *

… [P]laintiff urges this Court to find the second motion timely by applying CPLR 205 (a), allowing it to file the second motion six months after the denial of the first motion. … Here, the statute provides that “[i]f an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action” … . An action is defined as “a civil or criminal judicial proceeding” … . CPLR 105 defines an action to include a special proceeding, whereas a motion is defined as “an application for an order” (CPLR 2211). RPAPL 1371 (2) and (3) expressly direct that a motion for a deficiency judgment be made. Motions are not subject to the tolling provision of CPLR 205 (a). Had the Legislature intended to include motions in CPLR 205 (a), it could have done so and its failure to do so, is presumed to be intentional … . Trustco Bank v The Preserve Dev. Group Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00350, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

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