You are here: / Appeals
,

ABSENCE OF APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; ABSENCE OF DA’S SIGNATURE ON THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT DID NOT INVALIDATE IT; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMES ARISING FROM ONE CONTINUOUS INCIDENT WERE NOT ILLEGAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined: (1) the failure to include the approximate time of the offense in the Superior Court Information (SCI) was not a jurisdictional defect and the defect was waived by the guilty plea; (2) the district attorney’s failure to sign the waiver of indictment did not invalidate it; and (3) consecutive sentences for possession of a stolen car and damage caused to a police car (by the stolen car) were appropriate:

… [W]here, as here, the approximate time of the offenses is nonelemental and the defendant makes no argument that he or she lacked notice of the precise crimes for which he or she waived prosecution by indictment, the omission of such information is a nonjurisdictional defect, and, thus, any challenge with respect thereto is forfeited by a guilty plea … . We also note that, here, the approximate time of the offenses is readily ascertainable from the local court accusatory instruments … . …

… [T]he record contains a copy of defendant’s written waiver of indictment, which, although signed by defendant in open court in the presence of counsel, reveals a blank signature line intended for the District Attorney’s endorsement. However, the record also reveals that an order approving that waiver was entered by County Court thereafter (see CPL 195.30), and, therein, the court expressly found, among other things, that the waiver was consented to by the District Attorney (see CPL 195.10 [1] [c]). Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney’s endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant’s right to indictment by a grand jury … . …

… [W]hile the … crimes occurred in the course of one continuous criminal incident, the charges arose from separate, distinct acts … . County Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences with respect to those crimes was therefore not illegal. People v Light, 2020 NY Slip Op 03148, Third Dept 6-4-20

 

, ,

14-MONTH DELAY IN THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE RECORD DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the 14-month stenographic delay, which prevented the perfection of defendant’s appeal until after his release, did not deprive him of due process of law. Defendant contested his resentence after pleading guilty to a probation violation:

Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to appeal — and, thus, his right to due process — by approximately 14 months of stenographic delays prior to him obtaining the complete record in this matter so as to perfect his appeal … . He asserts that, because he has since been released from custody, and, thus, may no longer reasonably challenge the propriety of the resentence imposed — apparently the only issue taken with regard to the underlying proceedings — this Court should vacate, with prejudice, Supreme Court’s finding that he violated his probation and dismiss the associated declaration of delinquency … .

Despite the unfortunate appellate delay, defendant has failed to establish that it resulted in prejudice so as to warrant the summary remedy he seeks … ; his sole argument regarding his resentence would have been equally unpersuasive had it been before us on any earlier date. * * * Without some showing of how he has been prejudiced by this singular claim being rendered moot, we cannot conclude that defendant suffered a deprivation of due process by the delays alleged … . People v McCray, 2020 NY Slip Op 03154, Third Dept 6-4-20

 

, ,

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ORDERING THE RELEASE OF A PRISONER BECAUSE OF THE RISK POSED BY COVID-19 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PETITION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PRISON OFFICIALS WERE DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO THE RISK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, reversing Supreme Court, determined the habeas corpus petition seeking the release from prison of a 68-year-old prisoner because of the danger of contracting COVID-19 should not have been granted. At the time the appeal was heard, the inmate, Muntaqim, was hospitalized with COVID-19. The appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the situation is likely to recur. Although the petition established Muntaqim was incarcerated under conditions which could cause him serious harm, the petition did not demonstrate the prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to the risk. The prison respondents outlined the steps taken and the prison to reduce the spread of the disease:

Petitioner arguably established that Muntaqim was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” … . Annexed to the petition is a letter from a physician who discussed Muntaqim’s medical condition and opined that he was at extreme risk of “a serious and possible fatal outcome if infected with the novel coronavirus” responsible for causing COVID-19, as well as a letter from a group of physicians who explained that the novel coronavirus is quite infectious and that serious outbreaks in prisons were inevitable given the close contact between individuals inherent to the prison setting. … What petitioner failed to demonstrate, however, was deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials. Petitioner provided nothing from anyone with firsthand knowledge — including Muntaqim, who neither verified the petition nor submitted an affidavit in support of it — as to what was being done to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus at SCF [Sullivan Correctional Facility] or to protect inmates at high risk from COVID-19. In contrast, respondents came forward with the affidavit of respondent Superintendent of SCF, who detailed the steps that had been taken up to that point to prevent the introduction of the novel coronavirus into the facility and reduce the risks of potential transmission. … Supreme Court determined that DOCCS had “done nothing wrong” in its response to the burgeoning threat. Petitioner has not demonstrated the subjective element of deliberate indifference required to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. People ex rel. Carroll v Keyser, 2020 NY Slip Op 03169, Third Dept 6-4-20

 

, , , , ,

MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff did not allege separate claims for personal injury and wrongful death, therefore the two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations in EPTL 5-4.1, not the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations for negligence, applied to the actions against the municipalities; (2) motions in limine which limit the scope of the trial are appealable; and (3) preclusion of plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, based upon deficient disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d)(1), was an abuse of discretion. The action arose from a gas explosion at the great grandfather’s house which killed plaintiff’s 15-month-old son. Plaintiff sued the village, the town, the county and the New York State Electric & Gss Corporation (NYSEG). With regard to the motions in limine, the Third Department wrote:

“An order ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable as of right or by permission since an order made in advance of trial which merely determined the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling. However, an order that limits the scope of issues to be tried, affecting the merits of the controversy or the substantial rights of a party, is appealable” … . As to plaintiff’s objection to that part of the order as allowed evidence of the great grandfather’s negligence as a defense to the claim of res ipsa loquiter does not limit the scope of issues or impact a substantial right, such issue is not appealable … . Plaintiff also contends that Supreme Court erred in partially granting NYSEG’s motion to preclude the testimony of Reiber, plaintiff’s economist. Finding that the expert disclosure lacked reasonable detail as to how the value that Reiber assigned to plaintiff’s lost services and support would be calculated, Supreme Court precluded his testimony with regard to said damages. … However, because this ruling restricted plaintiff’s ability to prove and recover damages, this issue is appealable … . Reed v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03054, 5-28-20

 

, ,

POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE AND JAIL TIME UNDER THE SANITARY CODE; THEREFORE A SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING A SEARCH FOR SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS VALID; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL HERE WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, but went on to find that the search warrant and search were valid and proper. The defendant argued that the search for synthetic cannabinoids not authorized because that substance is not encompassed by the Penal Law. However, the Sanitary Code makes possession of the substance a violation which can result in a fine and a jail sentence:

… [T]he appeal waiver was invalid because County Court failed to advise defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … , and also because the court increased the sentence, but failed to inquire into whether defendant wished to withdraw his consent to the appeal waiver … . …

A search warrant application must include “[a] statement that there is reasonable cause to believe that property of a kind or character described in [CPL] 690.10 may be found in or upon a designated or described place” (CPL 690.35 [3] [b]). Personal property that “[c]onstitutes evidence or tends to demonstrate that an offense was committed in this state” is subject to seizure (CPL 690.10 [4]). “Offense” is defined as “conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Further, a “[v]iolation” is defined as “an offense . . . for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of [15] days cannot be imposed” (Penal Law § 10.00 [3]).

Defendant is correct in asserting that the Penal Law prohibitions against the possession of controlled substances and marihuana do not specifically include synthetic cannabinoid. However, the Sanitary Code makes it “unlawful for any individual . . . to possess, manufacture, distribute, sell or offer to sell any synthetic phenethylamine or synthetic cannabinoid,” with exceptions not applicable here (10 NYCRR 9-1.2). Significantly, “[t]he provisions of the [S]anitary [C]ode shall have the force and effect of law and the non-compliance or non-conformance with any provision thereof shall constitute a violation punishable on conviction for a first offense by a fine not exceeding [$250] or by imprisonment . . . not exceeding [15] days, or both” (Public Health Law § 229 …). It follows that, by definition, a search warrant may be issued for the alleged possession of synthetic cannabinoids … . People v Morehouse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03048, Thrid Dept 5-28-20

 

,

COUNTY COURT’S POST-JUDGMENT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION, AFTER A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS AN INTERMEDIATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO REFLECT THE RECENT DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WOULD THEN BE APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the post-judgment order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements was an intermediate order which was not appealable. The Second Circuit, pursuant to defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordered defendant’s release unless a state court adjudicated the voluntariness of his confession (made in 1986 when defendant was 16). County Court held a new suppression hearing and issued the order denying suppression. The Third Department sent the matter back to allow the amendment of the judgment of conviction to reflect the recent denial of the suppression motion, which would then be appealable:

Although not raised by the parties, we must first address the threshold issue of the appealability of County Court’s order. Indeed, an order denying a defendant’s suppression motion is an unreviewable intermediate order (see CPL 450.10). Ordinarily, in the course of a criminal proceeding, suppression hearings occur prior to a judgment of conviction and are reviewed incident to the direct appeal from that judgment. Nevertheless, there are cases, including the instant appeal, where a suppression hearing occurred after entry of a judgment of conviction … . In each of these cases, the trial court was specifically instructed that, if the defendant did not prevail in the suppression hearing, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that fact … . Here, however, the Second Circuit did not advise County Court to take this step … , and there is no evidence in the record that an amended judgement of conviction was entered after the People prevailed at the suppression hearing.

Accordingly, because an amended judgment of conviction has not been entered, we must dismiss this appeal. This harsh outcome appears at odds with the federal habeas corpus remand, which, in our view, was intended to permit review of the suppression hearing until finally decided by the court of last resort. However, this dismissal provides County Court the opportunity to amend the judgment of conviction to reflect the denial of the suppression motion, and defendant could then appeal as of right from the amended judgment of conviction (see CPL 450.10 [1]). People v Dearstyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 02951, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

, ,

THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reached different conclusions about how the erroneous denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the cell site location data should be treated on appeal under a harmless error analysis. The majority and the concurrence applied different harmless error analyses but concluded the conviction should be affirmed. The dissent argued the error was not harmless requiring a new trial. The decision includes useful, comprehensive discussions of “overwhelming evidence” and “harmless error. “The dissent summarized the three positions as follows:

From the dissent:

In essence, the majority applies the longstanding New York test of first assessing whether the evidence adduced at trial was overwhelming in favor of conviction, concludes that it was, and therefore the admission of the cell phone location data was harmless since it could not have influenced the result of the trial. The concurrence disagrees with the finding that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, but finds the error of admitting the cell phone location data nonetheless harmless; the concurrence maintains that, since its effect was to favor, or disfavor, the contentions of each side equally, this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where, despite the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the admission of tainted evidence, however misguided, was, in the words of the leading Court of Appeals case of People v Crimmins (36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]), nothing more than the “sheerest technicality.” Because I believe that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, and the effect of admitting the cell phone location data not necessarily neutral, I dissent and would reverse the judgment of conviction. People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02684, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMANDED; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY TO A PROBATION VIOLATION HE WAS GIVING UP HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING; APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter, determined defendant was not advised he could be deported based on his guilty plea, and further determined defendant’s plea to a probation violation was defective because he was not informed he was giving up his right to a hearing. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea, the appeal was heard in the interest of justice:

When defendant, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, the court did not advise him that if he was not a citizen, he could be deported as a consequence of his plea. Even though he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, there is no evidence that defendant knew about the possibility of deportation during the plea and sentencing proceedings. As such, the claim falls within the “narrow exception” to the preservation doctrine (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US 850 [2014]). Therefore, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (id. at 198). Accordingly, we remit for the remedy set forth in Peque (id. at 200-201), and we hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose.

Furthermore, defendant’s guilty plea to violation of probation was defective because there was no allocution about whether defendant understood that he was giving up his right to a hearing on the violation. While there is no mandatory catechism, Supreme Court failed to “advise defendant of his rights or the consequences regarding an admission to violating probation, including that he understood that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue and that he was waiving that right” … . Although defendant never moved to withdraw this plea and his claim is unpreserved, we review it in the interest of justice. People v Pinnock, 2020 NY Slip Op 02731, First Dept 5-7-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION RELATED TO A THEFT ON OCTOBER 3 AND DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT THEFT ON OCTOBER 1 IN SATISFACTION OF BOTH, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF REVIEW REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant was entitled to appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion even though the suppression motion did not relate to the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The defendant was charged with two thefts from the same residence on different days, a laptop computer taken on October 1 and jewelry taken on October 3. The police stopped the defendant on the street on October 3 and seized the jewelry. The suppression hearing related to that street stop. The defendant pled guilty to the theft of the computer and the jewelry-theft was satisfied by the plea. The Fourth Department held defendant was not entitled to appellate review of the jewelry-related suppression motion because defendant pled to the computer-theft. The case was sent back for review of the denial of the suppression motion:

Defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of burglary in the second degree … . The first count related to the laptop computer, taken from a dwelling on October 1, 2014; the second count related to the jewelry, which was taken from the same dwelling on October 3, 2014, the day of the arrest.

Defendant moved to suppress the jewelry, contending that his detention and the seizure of the jewelry violated his right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures …. Following a suppression hearing, with testimony from two of the police officers present at the arrest, Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the police had “reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator.”

Defendant, a predicate felony offender who was facing a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted of both counts of burglary, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree, in satisfaction of the entire indictment. … [D]efendant pleaded guilty to the October 1 burglary, as charged in the count pertaining to the theft of the laptop computer, in satisfaction of the count charging the October 3 burglary of jewelry, which was the subject of his motion to suppress.  * * *

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he states or reveals his reason for pleading guilty” … . * * *

A defendant who pleads guilty to one count will invariably take into consideration that other counts are satisfied by the plea. Importantly, a count satisfied by a guilty plea bears the double jeopardy consequences of a judgment of conviction. The judgment in this case prevents the People from prosecuting defendant again for the October 3, 2014 burglary, even though defendant did not plead to that count … . People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 02682, CtApp 5-7-20

 

, , ,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE AN ALLEGEDLY BIASED JUROR; THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM; THEREFORE DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, WAS NOT AVAILABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a comprehensive, extended dissenting opinion, determined defendant’s constitutional ineffective assistance argument based upon defense counsel’s failure to challenge an allegedly biased juror was properly rejected. The record was deemed insufficient to support the constitutional challenge. A motion to vacate the conviction, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 440, based upon matters not in the record, may be the only avenue available to the defendant here. The defendant was charged with depraved indifference murder stemming from a drive-by shooting:

We reject defendant’s argument here that prospective juror number 10’s statements during voir dire reflect actual bias against defendant predicated on any evidence precluding the juror from rendering an impartial verdict, as opposed to general discomfort with the case based on media coverage. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the juror’s verbatim statements did not reveal what about the case gave rise to his uneasiness — whether it be the seemingly random nature of the shooting, the defendant’s or victim’s identity, or the manner in which the police investigated … . Nor did this juror convey that his uneasiness was connected to any particular personal experience or relationship, … or whether his impressions risked predisposition toward the prosecution or defense. Moreover, as both the prosecutor and trial court indicated in questioning the juror, this case turned not on a dispute about the nature of the crime but on the prosecutor’s ability to prove that this defendant committed it — an issue not impacted by the juror’s apprehension.  * * *

A defendant’s views at trial about a prospective juror as conveyed to counsel are relevant to an ineffectiveness claim based on the joint decision to accept that juror. Here, where we do not know what was said between defendant and his counsel or how that conversation may have affected counsel’s impression of prospective juror number 10, the ineffective assistance claim cannot be resolved on direct appeal. People v Maffei, 2020 NY Slip Op 02680, CtApp 5-7-20

 

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