You are here: / Appeals
,

THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined the attorney for the children (AFC) took a position contrary to the  children’s wishes in this custody action, requiring a new hearing and the appointment of a new AFC:

An AFC is required to “zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2[d] … ). In order to determine the child’s wishes, the AFC must “consult with and advise the child to the extent of and in a manner consistent with the child’s capacities, and have a thorough knowledge of the child’s circumstances” (22 NYCRR 7.2[d][1]). The rules further state that ” the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests’ and that the [AFC] should explain fully the options available to the child, and may recommend to the child a course of action that in the [AFC]’s view would best promote the child’s interests'” … . * * *

… [T]he AFC’s representation was in direct contravention of her clients’ stated parameters. Throughout the course of the proceedings, she failed to advocate on behalf of her clients, who were 13 and 11 years old at the time of the hearing, and who were both on the high honor roll and involved in extracurricular activities. The AFC actively pursued a course of litigation aimed at opposing their stated positions. She joined the plaintiff in opposing the introduction of evidence and witnesses in support of the defendant’s case. When the defendant sought to introduce evidence in defense of the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant provided the children with unnecessary medical care, the AFC joined the plaintiff in opposing the introduction of the defendant’s evidence. The AFC also opposed the introduction of evidence that may have supported one child’s claim that the plaintiff attempted to strangle her. The AFC objected to the testimony of school personnel for the purpose of explaining the children’s seemingly excessive school absences. The AFC’s questions of the plaintiff during cross-examination were designed to elicit testimony in support of the plaintiff’s case, in opposition to her clients’ wishes. Silverman v Silverman, 2020 NY Slip Op 04338, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S DNA ON THE WEAPON AND DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE AS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR WHERE THE WEAPON WAS FOUND WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE WEAPON AT THE TIME ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION REVERSED BASED ON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the defendant’s DNA on the weapon and his presence as a passenger in the car where the weapon was found was not enough:

It is undisputed that the driver owned the vehicle and that the duffle bag belonged to him as well. The People relied on evidence that defendant’s DNA profile matched that of the major contributor to DNA found on the handgun and that the driver was excluded as a contributor thereto. Although ” an inference could be made [from that evidence] that defendant had physically possessed the gun at some point in time’ ” … , that evidence alone … does not establish that defendant actually possessed the handgun on the date and at the time alleged in the indictment … . …

Defendant was not the owner or operator of the vehicle, nor did the duffle bag in the locked trunk belong to him, and there was no evidence that defendant possessed or had access to the keys for the vehicle or that he had any access to or control over the trunk and duffle bag … . Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s statement to the police did not constitute an admission that he had possessed the handgun …  or that he knew about its presence in the duffle bag and, in any event, mere knowledge of the presence of the handgun would not establish constructive possession … . People v Hunt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04270, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

,

DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on the appeal and remitting the matter, determined County Court should have ruled on whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status:

Pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) and (3), because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense (see CPL 1.20 [41]), he is ineligible for a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present. “If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors is present and states the reasons for that determination on the record, then no further determination is required” (… see People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]). “If, on the other hand, the court determines that one or more of those factors are present, and therefore defendant is an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether he is a youthful offender” … . As the People correctly concede, the court failed to follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks. People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 04092, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO A NONPARENT WITHOUT FIRST MAKING A FINDING WHETHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, APPEAL HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required initial finding of extraordinary circumstances before awarding custody of the children to a nonparent. Although the issue was not preserved, it was heard in the interest of justice:

” [A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances . . . The nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child’ ” … . That rule ” applies even if there is an existing order of custody concerning that child unless there is a prior determination that extraordinary circumstances exist’ ” … . A prior consent order does not by itself constitute a judicial finding or an admission of extraordinary circumstances … . There is no indication in the record that the court previously made a determination of extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Byler v Byler, 2020 NY Slip Op 04025, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ‘LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE’ ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE ELEMENT OF RECKLESSNESS IN THIS ASSAULT CASE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s assault convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of recklessness was legally insufficient. Although the issue was not preserved by the motion for a trial order of dismissal, the appeal was heard in the interest of justice. The facts were not described:

Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, however, “because [her] motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at the ground[] advanced on appeal’ ” … . We nevertheless exercise our power to review her challenge as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We agree with defendant that the conviction of both counts of assault in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . The evidence submitted by the People is insufficient to establish that defendant acted recklessly, “i.e., that [s]he perceived a substantial and unjustifiable risk of [injury] and that [her] conscious disregard of that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in that situation” … . People v Romeiser, 2020 NY Slip Op 04054, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

,

THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME OTHER THAN TRESPASS IN THE PREMISES; THEREFORE THE COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; PRESERVATION FOR APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS GENRE OF ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s plea to burglary because the colloquy negated an essential element of the offense. The court noted that this type of error does not require preservation for appeal. The intent to commit burglary includes the intent to commit a crime in the premises other than trespass:

Although we agree with the People that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground … , this case nevertheless falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement … . Where a defendant’s recitation of the facts “negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that [the] defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … .

Here, defendant’s factual recitation negated at least one element of the crime. Specifically, defendant negated the “intent to commit a crime therein” element of burglary (Penal Law § 140.25) because his factual recitation contradicted any allegation that “he intended to commit a crime in the apartment other than his trespass” ( … see § 140.25). Criminal trespass in the second degree “cannot itself be used as the sole predicate crime in the intent to commit a crime therein’ element of burglary” … . The court thus had a duty to conduct an inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the crime … . Instead, the court stated, “I just want to make sure . . . [that] you still accept [the plea deal], because you have an absolute right to go to trial . . . I think you understand . . . [t]hat your defense of you going to the bathroom may be a difficult sell to a jury.” Because that minimal inquiry by the court did not clarify the nature of the crime in order to ensure that the plea was intelligently entered, the court erred in accepting the guilty plea. People v Hernandez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04049, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

, , ,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined that the Attorney General (petitioner) properly served subpoenas on the virtual currency companies (respondents) pursuant to General Business Law (GBL) 352 (Martin Act) in a fraud investigation. The subpoenas were attacked on several grounds, all of which were rejected: (1) subject matter jurisdiction (arguing the virtual currency is not a commodity or a security): (2) long-arm jurisdiction (arguing insufficient contacts with New York); (3) ex parte order was not certified as required by GBL 352 (court found this a technical not jurisdictional defect). But before addressing the issues raised on appeal, the Second Department held that the court did not have statutory authority under the GBL to address the respondents’ motion to dismiss (which was the basis of the appeal). Under the GBL, once the motions to vacate or modify the subpoenas were determined, the court has no authority over the Attorney General’s investigation:

… [U]nder the Martin Act’s statutory scheme, once Supreme Court has issued an order responding to a GBL 354 application, it has no further role in the Attorney General’s investigation, except to rule on a motion by either party to vacate or modify the order, as respondents made here. Accordingly, once the court issued the order authorized by GBL 354 on April 24, 2019, and modified it by order dated May 16, 2019, the proceeding before it was concluded and there was no action or proceeding for Supreme Court to “dismiss” on May 21, 2019 when respondents filed their motion that resulted in the order now before the court. All that remained was the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation, in which, by statute, the courts have no further role at this stage. Indeed, neither party cites to, and this Court is unaware of, any prior case in which the subject of a Martin Act investigation has moved to “dismiss” an application by the Attorney General for an order pursuant to GBL 354. Matter of James v iFinex Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03880, First Dept 7-9-20

 

,

IN THIS BATSON CHALLENGE CASE, THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEFENSE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE PROSECUTOR’S STATED REASON FOR EXCLUDING A PROSPECTIVE JUROR, I.E. THAT THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS NOT AFRICAN-AMERICAN, PRECLUDED APPEAL ON THAT ISSUE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO THAT JUROR, REQUIRING REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s Batson challenges were properly handled by the court and properly denied. The defense challenged the exclusion of several African-American potential jurors. With respect to one of the potential jurors, Putsam, the prosecutor answered the challenge by simply saying Putsam was not African-American. Although all three stages of a Batson challenge were addressed with respect to the other challenged jurors, nothing further was argued with respect to Putsam. The dissent argued the required three-step process was not followed with Putsam, requiring reversal and a new trial:

A review of the trial transcript leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Supreme Court engaged in all three analytical steps required by Batson v Kentucky and our corresponding case authorities. The defendant made no argument of any kind as to juror Pustam during step three. Accordingly, she has failed to preserve the specific argument which she raises for the first time on appeal, which is based, in part, at least, on facts that are outside the record, to wit, that Pustam’s Trinidadian heritage qualifies as “African-American.” Indeed, any appellate consideration of this new argument would require this Court to (1) assume facts not within this record; and (2) more importantly, ignore the fact that defense counsel did not dispute or challenge the People’s contention that Pustam was not “African-American.”

The Court of Appeals has been clear that “[w]hen, as here, a party raises an issue of a pattern of discrimination in excluding jurors, and the court accepts the race neutral reasons given, the moving party must make a specific objection to the exclusion of any juror still claimed to have been the object of discrimination … . The defendant’s failure to discuss juror Pustam at all during step three suggests that counsel was not challenging any comment or determination made by the Supreme Court during step two as to Pustam. Similarly, the court’s exception noted unilaterally on the record at the conclusion of step three failed to preserve any “specific” argument for the defendant on appeal, as is expressly required by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, without preservation, our analysis of this appeal cannot reach the cases of People v Pescara (162 AD3d 1772) and People v Chance (125 AD3d 993), cited by the dissent in support of a Batson reversal on the basis of skin color. People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 03807, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, , ,

THE COURT WAS TROUBLED BY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIAL AND HEARINGS’ (OATH’S) REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER PAY THE ORDERED RESTITUTION OF OVER $234,000 BEFORE PETITIONER COULD APPEAL THE DETERMINATION; THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DECIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted it was troubled by the New York City Office of Administrative Trial and Hearings’ (OATH’S) requirement that petitioner pay the ordered restitution as a prerequisite to appealing the determination. The issue was not raised by the parties so the First Department could not decide it:

Although neither specifically preserved nor raised on appeal, we are troubled by the constitutional ramifications of an administrative tribunal insulating its decision by making judicial review contingent on satisfaction of its order, including, as here, the payment of money … . It seems patently unfair to force a litigant to pay restitution as a condition for filing an appeal where the litigant has received a waiver of prior payment of his fine due to financial hardship … . Petitioner here is excused from paying a $5,000 fine as a condition to filing an appeal based on financial hardship, but, notwithstanding its financial hardship, it is forced to pay almost a quarter of a million dollars ($234,152.57) before it can file an appeal. Under this system, if you do not have the financial means to pay, you cannot come into court and seek review regardless of the merits of the challenged administrative determination … . Nonetheless, because this constitutional issue was not fully briefed before us, we do not decide it. Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings, 2020 NY Slip Op 03715, First Dept 7-2-20

 

,

BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WERE NOT PART OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT OR THE RECORD ON APPEAL, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTUALLY INDICTED ON THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE AMENDED INDICTMENT; PLEA VACATED AND AMENDED INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the amended indictment, held that, because the grand jury minutes did not accompany the motion to amend the indictment and were not available to the appellate court, it could not be determined whether defendant was indicted on the charged offense, a jurisdictional defect. The People argued that the grand jury voted on the offense charged in the amended indictment but the wrong subdivision of the statute was set forth in the original indictment:

“The right to indictment by a [g]rand [j]ury has . . . been recognized as not merely a personal privilege of the defendant but a public fundamental right, which is the basis of jurisdiction to try and punish an individual”… . “[S]ince an infringement of defendant’s right to be prosecuted only by indictment implicates the jurisdiction of the court,” this claim is not waived by a guilty plea and may be raised for the first time on appeal … .  Thus, “[b]efore a person may be publicly accused of a felony, and required to defend against such charges, the [s]tate must a [g]rand [j]ury that sufficient legal reasons exist to believe the person guilty” … . To that end, an indictment ensures that “the crime for which the defendant is brought to trial is in fact one for which he [or she] was indicted by the [g]rand [j]ury, rather than some alternative seized upon by the prosecution” … , providing a safeguard against prosecutorial authority by requiring the grand jury to “assess[] the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s case” … .

The record before us only establishes that a grand jury indicted defendant for violating subdivision (7) of Penal Law § 120.05, not subdivision (3) of that statute. In their motion to amend, the People stated that “the grand jury was instructed on the correct section of the statute” — presumably subdivision (3) of Penal Law § 120.05 … — and that the amendment therefore did not change the theory of their case “as reflected in the instructions and the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury,” asserting that the charge in the original indictment (under subdivision [7]) was an “inadvertent misstatement.” It is unclear if the People were representing that the grand jury actually indicted defendant under subdivision (3). People v Mathis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03696, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

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