You are here: / Appeals
, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the canine sniff after a traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The concurrence argued the court could not reach the proper standard for the canine sniff because the motion court did not rule on it. The dissent argued the probable cause standard should apply:

Defendant correctly asserts that the canine’s contact sniff of his person intruded upon his personal privacy as secured under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and article 1, § 12 of the NY Constitution … . The question presented is whether the search ran afoul of either constitutional provision and what standard applies to make that assessment — an issue of first impression for this Court.

Considering the context of a vehicle traffic stop and how events unfolded, we conclude that a reasonable suspicion standard should apply, not one of probable cause … . A canine sniff is a minimal intrusion compared to a full-blown search of a person, intended only to detect the possession of narcotics … . Without prompting from [officer] Bracco, the canine twice was “in odor” of its own accord, providing a reasonable and articulable basis for Bracco to suspect that defendant possessed narcotics on his person. Given the necessity for prompt action, it was not unreasonable for Bracco to allow the canine to approach defendant. There was contact between the canine and defendant’s person, but the record suggests that contact was brief and the canine quickly alerted. In these circumstances, we conclude that the search was valid and the suppression motion properly denied. People v Butler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03222, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

, , , , ,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the arbitrator’s award was valid even if an error of law or fact was made; (2) the failure to provide a letter of engagement did not preclude the petitioner-attorney’s action for breach of contract; (3) petitioner was not required to commence a special proceeding to enforce the judgment; (4) the motions to enforce the judgement do not violate the Commercial Division rules:

… [E]ven if the arbitrator had made an error of law or fact in concluding that respondents had breached the retainer agreements, this alone would not justify vacating the award … . …

… [T]he court improperly denied the motions [to enforce the judgment] based upon its finding that petitioner had failed to commence a separate special proceeding to enforce the judgment. The language of CPLR 5225 clarifies that the court had jurisdiction to resolve the turnover motion. While CPLR 5225(a) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property “in possession or custody” of the judgment debtor does so “[u]pon motion of the judgment creditor,” CPLR 5225(b) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property in a third party’s possession or custody does so “[u]pon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor” … Given that petitioner brought the motions against the judgment debtor as opposed to a third party, it was not required to commence a separate proceeding. Matter of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v World Class Capital Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03252, First Dept 5-20-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint because plaintiff missed a status conference. The First Department noted that the sua sponte dismissal order was not appealable as of right. Therefore plaintiff correcting moved to vacate the order and then appealed the denial of that order:

Contrary to defendant Hudson’s argument, the status conference order sua sponte dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Plaintiff followed proper procedure by “apply[ing] to vacate the order and then appeal[ing] from the denial of that motion so that a suitable record [could] be made and counsel afforded the opportunity to be heard on the issues” … .

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal without giving plaintiff notice that such a sanction might be imminent … . Further, the sanction of dismissal was not warranted, and would not have been warranted even upon a motion on notice, based on plaintiff’s noncompliance with one order … . MJC Elec., Inc v Hudson Meridian Constr. Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03258, First Dept 5-20-21

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the evidence identifying defendant as one of the robbers was legally sufficient but the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he police officer who spoke with the complainant outside the deli testified that the only description given of the perpetrators was four male Hispanics, one with a bleach-blond beard, and that the complainant never mentioned that one of the perpetrators was wearing a bandana. After speaking with the complainant, the officer, accompanied by the complainant, crossed the street and entered the park where the robbery had occurred. The defendant, who was wearing a black shirt and sitting on a bench approximately 100 feet from where the crime took place, was the only person in the park. The officer walked up to the defendant, who did not flee or offer any resistance, told him to stand, and placed him in handcuffs. Upon searching the defendant, the officer found a bandana depicting the Mexican flag in his pocket. According to the arresting officer, upon seeing the bandana, the complainant told the officer for the first time that one of the perpetrators had been wearing a similar bandana. The complainant’s wallet and its contents were never recovered. * * *

In this single-witness identification case, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. While the defendant was found in possession of a distinctive-looking bandana in close spatial and temporal proximity to the scene of the robbery, none of the police witnesses testified that the complainant had mentioned the existence of such a bandana prior to the defendant’s arrest. Moreover, the record evidence does not explain why the police would have expected to find one of the suspects in the park, when the complainant himself testified that the four suspects left together after the robbery. We also find it significant that the complainant testified that he had seen the man with the bandana on two occasions prior to the night of the robbery, yet he also testified that he had never seen the defendant before the night of the robbery, and in fact identified one of the codefendants in court as the man with the bandana. People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 03196, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he is eligible for judicial diversion, i.e., alcohol or substance abuse treatment as an element of sentencing:

… “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s claim that his application for judicial diversion was improperly denied is not foreclosed by his plea of guilty” … .

Pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a), upon receipt of a completed alcohol and substance abuse evaluation report … either the People or an “eligible defendant” … , may request a hearing on the issue of whether the eligible defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … .

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion without first conducting a hearing pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a) on the issue of whether the defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment. It is undisputed that the defendant is an “eligible defendant” as defined in CPL 216.00(1), and that an “alcohol and substance abuse evaluation” as defined in CPL 216.00(2) was completed. Based upon the conclusions contained in that evaluation, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a hearing on the issue of whether he should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … . People v Commissiong, 2021 NY Slip Op 03193, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the issue whether the probation officer’s search of defendant’s residence was improperly based solely on an anonymous tip was not preserved for appeal. In addition, the defendant did not demonstrate defense counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue. The dissent argued the record did not support the motion court’s finding the warrantless search was lawful and reasonable:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, he did not preserve that issue for our review through either that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress the evidence or his posthearing memorandum. A question of law with respect to a ruling of a suppression court is preserved for appeal when “a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same . . . , or if in response to a protest by a party, the court expressly decided the question raised on appeal” (CPL 470.05 [2] …). In his omnibus motion, defendant sought, inter alia, suppression of the evidence seized during the search on the ground that the evidence “was taken in violation of . . . defendant’s constitutional rights” inasmuch as it was done without “a search warrant or probable cause.” Those “broad challenges” are insufficient to preserve defendant’s present contention … . In defendant’s posthearing memorandum, he argued that the search was invalid because there was no warrant or consent to search, that the search was not rationally related to the duties of the officer, and that the parole officers were acting as police officers when conducting the search. He did not raise his present contention that the People were required to prove that the information provided to the officer satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test in order for the search to be lawful, even though he was then aware of the basis for the search … . Nor did the court expressly decide that issue … . People v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 02896, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

,

A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL PRECLUDES AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT AT SENTENCING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined a waiver of appeal precluded an appeal alleging the violation of defendant’s right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing:

… [D]efendant’s contention that his CPL 380.50(1) right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing was violated is not reviewable because such a claim did not survive the valid appeal waiver. Although the statutory right is “deeply rooted” and “substantial,” its value is largely personal to defendant … . Defendant’s claim does not fall among the narrow class of nonwaivable defects that undermine “the integrity of our criminal justice system . . . [or] implicate . . . a public policy consideration that transcends the individual concerns of a particular defendant to obtain appellate review” … . Moreover, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, a valid unrestricted waiver of appeal elicited during a plea proceeding can preclude appellate review of claims that have “not yet reached full maturation,” including those arising during sentencing … , nor is this challenge to presentence procedures reviewable under the illegal sentence exception … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 5-6-21

 

, ,

THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; THE APPELLATE COURT HAD SENT THE MATTER BACK FOR RESENTENCING AFTER FINDING PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the law of the case doctrine precluded precluded Supreme Court from considering additional evidence and finding the incarceration tolling period was sufficient to permit sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. The Second Department, on a prior appeal, had found the tolling period insufficient and sent the matter back for resentencing:

“The doctrine of the law of the case is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” … . “An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court” … , and “‘forecloses reexamination of [an issue previously determined] absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or a change in the law'” … .

Here, this Court previously determined, on the merits, that the defendant’s incarceration dates did not amount to a sufficient tolling period so as to qualify the March 27, 1987 conviction as a predicate violent felony under Penal Law § 70.04(1)(b)(iv) and (v). The People had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue both at the initial hearing before the Supreme Court in 2013, and before this Court on appeal … . People v Kaval, 2021 NY Slip Op 02823, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT, UPON REMITTAL AFTER A PRIOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL, DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD FOR REVIEW OF ITS ORDER RE: FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court, upon remittal after a prior reversal, did not create a sufficient record to allow review of its order re: father’s parental access schedule:

“In determining custody and [parental access] issues, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child” … . “Generally, [parental access] should be determined after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child” … .

“A trial court must state in its decision ‘the facts it deems essential’ to its determination” … . “Effective appellate review, especially in proceedings involving child custody determinations, ‘requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the record is not sufficient for this Court to conduct an intelligent review of the evidence.

Furthermore, the children are of such an age and maturity that information regarding their preferences is necessary to create a sufficient record to determine their best interests … . Matter of Georgiou-Ely v Ely, 021 NY Slip Op 02796, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed defendant’s appeal because he has been deported. The appeal can be reinstated if defendant returns to the court’s jurisdiction:

In People v Harrison (27 NY3d 281), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its ruling that an intermediate appellate court retains its discretion to dismiss a pending permissive appeal due to a defendant’s involuntary deportation. Here, if this Court were to reverse the order appealed from, the defendant would be required to attend and participate in further proceedings in the Supreme Court, which he can no longer do. Accordingly, we grant the People’s motion and dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to a motion to reinstate the appeal should the defendant return to this Court’s jurisdiction … . People v Lopez, 2021 NY Slip Op 02546, Second Dept 4-28-21