You are here: / Appeals
,

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

 

,

ANY CHALLENGE BASED ON A DEFECT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION AND WAIVER OF APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO SET FORTH THE DATE AND TIME OF THE OFFENSE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; THE PLEA WAS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPLETE COLLOQUY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea colloquy did not demonstrate defendant fully understood and voluntarily waived his right to trial. The court noted that the failure to set forth the date and time of the offense in the superior court information (SCI) and the waiver of indictment was not a jurisdictional defect and any related error was not preserved for appeal and was forfeited by the guilty plea:

Notwithstanding the omission of the date and approximate time of the offense, the waiver of indictment and the SCI, together with the underlying accusatory instruments prepared in connection with the incident, gave defendant reasonable notice of the felony sex crime with which he was being charged. In light of this, as well as the absence of any indication that defendant raised an objection before County Court to the sufficiency of the waiver of indictment or the SCI, or requested a bill of particulars, defendant’s challenge to the waiver of indictment and the SCI was forfeited by his guilty plea … . …

Preliminarily, we note that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of the plea is not precluded by his appeal waiver … and was preserved by his unsuccessful postallocution motion to withdraw his plea … . During the plea proceedings, County Court advised defendant that he was giving up a number of important rights by pleading guilty, including the right “to take the case to trial,” the “right to cross-examine people who testified against you,” and “the right to testify yourself or call your own witnesses.” The court further explained that he could not be convicted at trial unless the People proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime. The court, however, failed to mention the privilege against self-incrimination or ascertain whether defendant conferred with counsel regarding the trial-related rights that he was waiving and the constitutional consequences of entering a guilty plea … . Absent an affirmative showing that defendant fully understood and voluntarily waived his trial-related constitutional rights, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Oliver, 2020 NY Slip Op 03697, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE HE IS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE ORDER OF PROTECTION EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT (SECOND DEPT).

Although defendant had already completed his sentence, the Second Department held he was entitled to a determination whether he should be adjudicated a youthful offender, even if that relief was not requested. In addition, the Second Department noted the order of protection exceeded the maximum time allowed in the Criminal Procedure Law and did not take into account defendant’s jail-time:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether to adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender. “Generally, under such circumstances, the sentence is vacated, and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for resentencing after determining whether the defendant should be treated as a youthful offender”… . However, in this case, the defendant has served his sentences. Under these circumstances, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment and thereafter submit a report to this Court advising of its determination, and hold the appeals in abeyance in the interim … . People v Shehi, 2020 NY Slip Op 03676, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO INSERT AN ORDER FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing respondent mother’s appeal, determined mother failed to timely appeal the order terminating her parental rights. Mother submitted a notice of appeal after she was served with the April 2018 permanency hearing order, not within 35 days of her being served with the November 2016 order terminating her parental rights:

Respondent contends that the affidavit submitted with her notice of appeal demonstrates that she intended to appeal the November 2016 order terminating her parental rights, rather than the April 5, 2018 permanency hearing order. Accordingly, respondent asks this Court to “construe [her appeal] as such, and deem it timely filed.” Despite this request, the order terminating respondent’s parental rights was entered and mailed to respondent in November 2016, 18 months before her May 2018 notice of appeal. Thus, even if we were to construe it as respondent requests, because the notice of appeal was not filed and served “within 35 days after the order was mailed” to respondent, it was untimely and we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal … . Further, despite respondent’s contention that her affidavit accompanying the notice of appeal demonstrates her intent to appeal the order terminating her parental rights, this affidavit explicitly and repeatedly references the permanency hearing order. Although this Court “may treat a notice of appeal which contains an inaccurate description of the judgment or order appealed from as valid,” it may not, as respondent requests, “amend a notice of appeal so as to insert therein an order from which no appeal has in fact ever been taken” … . Matter of Alan VV. (Amanda RR.), 2020 NY Slip Op 03574, Third Dept 6-26-20

 

, ,

THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL; DESPITE THE AFFIRMANCE OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION ON APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE THE APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his depraved-indifference murder conviction should have been granted. The Court of Appeals opinion which changed the proof requirements for the depraved indifference mens rea was issued before defendant’s conviction became final. The proof at defendant’s trial demonstrated defendant acted intentionally as opposed acting with “depraved indifference:”

… [T]he defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate so much of the judgment as convicted him of depraved indifference murder, arguing that, in light of People v Payne (3 NY3d 266), which was decided 15 days after this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on his direct appeal but before his conviction became final (see Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 593), the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea for depraved indifference murder. The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, as both procedurally barred by CPL 440.10(2)(a) and meritless. The court reasoned that the defendant’s legal sufficiency argument based on the change of law set forth in People v Payne had been addressed and rejected by this Court in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to reargue his direct appeal, by the Court of Appeals in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, and by the federal court in denying the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. With respect to the merits of the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of depraved indifference murder (see People v Payne, 3 NY3d at 272; People v Hernandez, 167 AD3d at 940). People v Illis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03535, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUES WHETHER MOTHER HAD MADE ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IN A SWORN PLEADING OR WHETHER MOTHER HAD PROVEN DOMESTIC ABUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUES WERE PRESERVED AND WOULD REMIT FOR A BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ANALYSIS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent, affirmed the award of custody to father, finding that the issues raised on appeal by mother were not preserved. Defendant mother argued she had made allegations of domestic abuse in a sworn pleading (petition) and, therefore, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 240(1)(a), the court was required to consider the effect of the domestic violence on the best interests of the child:

Defendant failed to preserve her arguments regarding Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1) (a). As a result, the parties never litigated, and Supreme Court did not pass upon, or make any findings with respect to, whether a withdrawn family offense petition constitutes “a sworn petition” for purposes of this statute or whether defendant proved allegations of domestic violence “by a preponderance of the evidence” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]) — issues that are essential to the arguments defendant now raises. Record evidence supports the affirmed custody award. * * *

From the dissent:

Because the issue is preserved, I would reverse and remit to Supreme Court for a new best interest of the child analysis consistent with the framework of Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1) (a), and any development of the record as needed. Cole v Cole, 2020 NY Slip Op 03489, CtApp 6-23-20

 

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