You are here: / Appeals
, ,

APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the plaintiff’s Joan and Christopher Porco were not aggrieved by Supreme Court’s ruling and therefore could not appeal it. The underlying action alleges Civil Rights Law (right to privacy) violations related to a film made by defendant about a crime committed by Christopher Porco. The complaint alleged the film had been republished making the action timely. Supreme Court denied the motion without prejudice to try again after discovery:

Christopher Porco is not an aggrieved party. Defendant’s motion sought dismissal of only those claims asserted by Joan Porco. In other words, defendant did not seek any relief against Christopher Porco. Supreme Court likewise did not grant defendant any relief against him. Accordingly, Christopher Porco has no basis to appeal from the February 2018 order.

Regarding Joan Porco, Supreme Court held that she could not rely on the relation back doctrine for her claims in the amended complaint to be timely asserted. The court nonetheless denied defendant’s motion without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery after considering plaintiffs’ republication argument. … Accordingly, the court neither granted defendant any affirmative relief against Joan Porco nor withheld any affirmative relief requested by Joan Porco. Indeed, the only affirmative relief sought by Joan Porco was for leave to serve a second amended complaint, which the court granted and is not contested on appeal. Because Joan Porco was not granted incomplete relief, the exception to the aggrievement requirement … does not apply in this case.

Furthermore, a party is not aggrieved when his or her interests are only remotely or contingently affected by the order appealed from … . Although Joan Porco’s claims are subject to dismissal in the future given that Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion without prejudice to renew, it is possible that defendant may never seek to renew its motion. And, even if defendant did move to renew, we can only surmise at this juncture how the court would decide it. Finally, to the extent that Joan Porco is dissatisfied with the court’s rationale concerning the relation back doctrine, such dissatisfaction does not make her an aggrieved party … . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07122, Third Dept 10-3-19

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S DRUG SALE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversed defendant’s drug-sale conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The police saw a woman approach defendant and the woman had a $10 bag of crack cocaine in her mouth when the police stopped her. The defendant had $10 in his pocket but no drugs on him. No exchange between the two was observed:

Two police officers testified that they observed defendant in a high drug trafficking area. They both saw defendant approach a man and talk to him. The man gave defendant money and there was an “exchange,” but the officers did not see what was exchanged. Shortly thereafter, one of the officers witnessed a woman approach defendant. The officer saw the woman speak to defendant and then touch his hand, but the officer did not see any money or drugs exchanged. Defendant and the woman separated, and the officer approached the woman. The officer identified herself, said that she just saw what happened, and heard the woman chewing on something. She asked the woman to spit out the object, which turned out to be a small bag containing $10 worth of crack cocaine. The officer never saw the woman put the bag in her mouth or even bring her hand to her mouth. The police then arrested the woman and defendant. Defendant did not have any drugs on him, but had $10 in his sweatshirt pocket and other denominations of cash in his pants pocket.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the People did not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant sold cocaine to the woman, which was the only crime charged. The officer who witnessed the transaction acknowledged she did not observe an exchange of anything, including money, drugs or unidentified objects, between defendant and the woman. In addition, the People’s theory that the woman put the bag in her mouth after purchasing it from defendant was contradicted by the officer’s testimony that she never saw the woman put anything into her mouth, or even put her hand to her mouth. Furthermore, the People’s theory that defendant sold two $10 bags, one to the man and the other to the woman, was inconsistent with the cash found on defendant. People v Correa, 2019 NY Slip Op 07017, First Dept 10-1-19

 

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid. He therefore could challenge the denial of his suppression motion on appeal. However, Supreme Court did not make the statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law. The matter was remitted for findings on all the issues raised by the suppression motion, and the appeal is held in abeyance:

When the Supreme Court attempted to explain to the defendant the waiver of the right to appeal, it improperly conflated the right to appeal with rights automatically forfeited by a plea of guilty … . As such, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right he was being asked to waive or the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty … . Moreover, although the record of the proceedings reflects that the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel … . …

“[T]he CPL article 710 suppression procedure involves an adjudication based on mixed questions of law and fact”… . “The suppression court must make findings of fact, often requiring it to assess the credibility of witnesses” … . “Regardless of whether a hearing was conducted, the court, upon determining [an article 710] motion, must set forth on the record its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination” (CPL 710.60[6] …). People v Harris, 2019 NY Slip Op 06795, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the People’s appeal from dismissal of the indictment and the denial of their motion for reconsideration, which was not authorized by statute, must be dismissed. County Court had determined the victim’s testimony at the grand jury was unsworn and could not be considered. The People then made a motion for reconsideration with proof the victim had been properly sworn:

… [D]efendant, an inmate at Greene County Correctional Facility, was charged by indictment with aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate, stemming from an April 2016 incident wherein defendant was transported to Columbia Memorial Hospital for medical treatment and thereafter allegedly drank his own urine and spat it in the face of a correction officer (hereinafter the victim). The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation in lieu of motions and, pursuant thereto, County Court reviewed, among other things, the grand jury minutes to determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment. In December 2016, County Court dismissed the indictment, determining that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient inasmuch as the People’s sole witness — the victim — had not been administered the correct oath and, as such, had presented unsworn testimony to the grand jury. The People thereafter moved for reconsideration, averring that the court reporter had erroneously omitted reference to the correct oath which had, in fact, been appropriately given by the jury foreperson to the victim, and the People affixed to the motion a corrected copy of the grand jury minutes reflecting same.

… [I]t is well settled that “no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal [action] unless specifically provided for by statute” … . Here, the People’s underlying motion purports to be one for “reconsideration”; however, even construing such motion as a motion to reargue and/or renew, there is no statute authorizing the People to appeal from the denial of such a motion in a criminal action … . People v Overbaugh, 2019 NY Slip Op 06546, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

, ,

THE JURY NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ VERBATIM TO COUNSEL, NOT PARAPHRASED BY THE JUDGE; THIS MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRES REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury notes should have been read verbatim to counsel, not paraphrased:

.. [T]he jury submitted a note stating, “We would like to see the difference between first and second degree murder. (Powerpoint).” The Supreme Court informed counsel, the defendant, and the codefendant that the jurors “want to be recharged on first degree and second degree.” …

The jury submitted another note which read, “Phone Records Between Jimmy & Ragene — When Did Communication Start?” During a discussion on the record, the Supreme Court mentioned that the jurors “want to know when did the communications start. And the communications started on June 11. And the stipulation covers it. So we’ll read back the stipulation.”

The record reveals that the Supreme Court did not read the entire contents of these two jury notes into the record, and there was no indication that the entire contents of the notes otherwise were shared with counsel … . Rather, the court improperly paraphrased the notes  … .

Counsel’s awareness of the existence of a note does not effectuate the court’s proper discharge of its statutory duty … . Although defense counsel may have been made aware of the existence and gist of the second note during an off-the-record discussion, this is insufficient to establish that counsel had been made aware of the precise contents of the note … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure, it cannot be assumed that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference to which the transcript does not refer … .

As such, the Supreme Court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise contents of substantive juror inquiries, and therefore, reversal is required … . People v Copeland, 2019 NY Slip Op 06507, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the conditional order upon which dismissal of the complaint was based was not authorized because issue had not been joined at the time the order was made. Therefore the bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. However, because of the two year delay in moving to vacate the order, the bank is not entitled to interest, late charges, fees, costs and attorney’s fees incurred after the date of the 2014 conditional order. An unauthorized supplemental record on appeal, which was stipulated to by the parties, contained material that was not in the record and was not considered by the Second Department:

A pleading cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion by the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . Additionally, it appears that the complaint was ministerially dismissed, without a motion, and without the entry of any formal order by the court dismissing the complaint … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Spence, 2019 NY Slip Op 06529, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT A PERIOD OF TIME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL CALCULATION, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING AND REPORT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, sending the matter back for a hearing on defendant’s statutory speedy-trial motion to dismiss, determined defendant had met his burden to show a delay greater that six months but the People did not present sufficient evidence that a period of time should be excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

… [T]he defendant sustained his initial burden on the motion by alleging that a period of unexcused delay in excess of six months had elapsed since the date that he was arraigned on the felony complaint (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). In opposition, the People failed to conclusively demonstrate with “unquestionable documentary proof” that any periods within that time should be excluded (CPL 210.45[5][c] …). Moreover, the “court action sheet” provided to this Court on appeal, of which we may take judicial notice … , contained only an ambiguous notation purportedly regarding the defendant’s alleged waiver of his CPL 30.30 rights from May 5, 2014, to July 8, 2014 … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and thereafter a report on the defendant’s motion … . People v Perkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH AN A FELONY AND FACING A POTENTIAL LIFE SENTENCE CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION; JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL DESPITE GUILTY PLEA AND FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE BELOW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined that the NYS Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law 195.10[1] prohibited defendant’s waiver of indictment because defendant was charged with an A felony with a potential life sentence. The defendant was charged with second degree murder, waived indictment and pled to a superior court information charging first degree manslaughter. The court noted that this jurisdictional issue could be considered on appeal despite the guilty plea and the failure to raise the issue below:

The New York State Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime . . . unless on indictment of a grand jury” (NY Const, art. 1 § 6). The Constitution contains a limited exception to this jurisdictional requirement: “a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney” (id. ).

In addition, Criminal Procedure Law § 195.10 provides that a defendant may waive indictment by grand jury when, among other conditions, “the defendant is not charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment” (CPL 195.10 [1]). Accordingly, under both the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law, a defendant who is held for the action of the grand jury on a class A felony punishable by life imprisonment may not waive indictment by the grand jury and agree to be prosecuted for a lesser included offense in order to facilitate a plea bargain on the homicide offense … . People v Monforte, 2019 NY Slip Op 06451, CtApp 9-5-19

 

, , , ,

ALLOWING AN UNSWORN WITNESS TO TESTIFY WAS ERROR; ALLOWING QUESTIONING ABOUT A WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR A STATEMENT NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the questioning of an unsworn witness (Mitchell) who refused to answer questions pursuant to the Fifth Amendment privilege deprived defendant of a fair trial. The issues pertaining to the witness’s refusal to take the oath and testify were nor preserved, but were considered in the interest of justice. The court noted Criminal Procedure Law 710.30 does not apply to statements made voluntarily in a noncoercive, noncustodial setting. Therefore the failure to timely notify the defense of the defendant’s admission to the murder made to a confidential informant was not an error. Based upon the trial judge’s characterization of the defendant at sentencing, the new trial will be before a different judge:

Since Mitchell refused to take the oath, and was not deemed to be ineligible to take the oath by reason of, inter alia, infancy, mental disease, or defect pursuant to CPL 60.20(2), the Supreme Court erred in allowing Mitchell to testify or be questioned by counsel. The court further erred in giving the jury a charge regarding the corroboration of an unsworn witness …, which permits a jury, under certain conditions, to convict a defendant upon unsworn testimony of a person deemed ineligible to take an oath. …

… .[T]he prejudice to the defendant arose from (1) the prosecutor’s posing of leading questions which informed the jury that Mitchell, a person familiar with both the defendant and the victim, had previously identified the defendant as the shooter, (2) the inferences that the prosecutor sought to draw from Mitchell’s refusal to testify, and (3) the court’s jury instructions that the jury may draw an inference of the defendant’s guilt from Mitchell’s refusal to testify. …

“Where, as here, a witness asserts [her] Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury, the effect of the powerful but improper inference of what the witness might have said absent the claim of privilege can neither be quantified nor tested by cross-examination, imperiling the defendant’s right to a fair trial” … . “[A] witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege may amount to reversible error in two instances: one, when the prosecution attempts to build its case on inferences drawn from the witness’s assertion of the privilege, and two, when the inferences unfairly prejudice defendant by adding critical weight’ to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination” … . People v Ward, 2019 NY Slip Op 06419, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

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