You are here: / Appeals
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF THE KNIFE WAS DEMONSTRATED AT TRIAL, THERE WAS NO RECORD EVIDENCE THAT THE KNIFE POSSESSED BY DEFENDANT WAS A GRAVITY KNIFE, RELATED CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, under a weight of the evidence analysis, determined that the proof did not support the jury’s finding that the weapon possessed by defendant was a gravity knife:

Penal Law § 265.00(5) defines a “[g]ravity knife” as a “knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.” “[A] gravity knife, as so defined, requires that the blade lock in place automatically upon its release and without further action by the user” … . …

Although an officer demonstrated the operation of the knife at trial, the record contains “no contemporaneous description of what the jury saw” during that demonstration … . Further, there is no other evidence in the record that established whether or how the blade locked. In short, the People failed to create a record proving that the knife satisfied the statutory definition of a gravity knife  … . Thus, the weight of the evidence before us does not support a finding that the defendant’s knife was, in fact, a gravity knife … . People v Sauri, 2019 NY Slip Op 02359, Second Deplt 3-27-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS 17 WHEN HE COMMITTED THE CRIMES AND WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN 1992, THAT CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED AND DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER IN 2016, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, HE WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the matter for consideration whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. The original murder conviction was in 1992. Defendant was granted a new trial and pled guilty to manslaughter in 2016. The youthful offender issue survives a waiver of appeal:

Defendant was 17 years old at the time he committed the underlying crimes and, based on the record before us, he appears to be an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10 (2). Defendant was sentenced, however, without the benefit of an updated presentence report. The court obtained from defendant a waiver of an updated report, which is generally permissible where, as here, the “defendant had been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing and at the time of . . . resentencing [the defendant] was afforded the opportunity to supply information about his [or her] subsequent conduct” … . Nonetheless, “[w]hen determining whether a defendant is an eligible youth, the defendant’s status at the time of the conviction—in this case at the time of his plea of guilty—is controlling” … . The original presentence report prepared in 1992 on which the court relied is insufficient to establish that defendant was an eligible youth at the time he pled guilty to the manslaughter counts in 2016. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant is an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10 (2) with the benefit of an updated presentence report and, if so, whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. People v Jarvis, 2019 NY Slip Op 02206, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, ILLEGAL SENTENCE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY EITHER PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the period of postrelease supervision was not authorized for the indeterminate sentence imposed on the tampering with physical evidence conviction:

Supreme Court imposed a period of postrelease supervision in connection with defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence. That was error inasmuch as a period of postrelease supervision is not authorized in connection with an indeterminate sentence (see Penal Law § 70.45 [1] … ). Although the issue is not raised by either party, we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that period of postrelease supervision … . People v Harvey, 2019 NY Slip Op 02250, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

SURCHARGE, DNA DATABANK FEE, CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST A JUVENILE OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined that defendant juvenile offender waived his right to appeal but found that the surcharge, DNA databank fee and crime victim assistance fee should not have been imposed on a juvenile offender. The concurrence argued that the waiver of appeal precluded the challenge to the imposed fees, but the People waived defendant’s appeal-waiver on that narrow issue:

As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, we conclude that the surcharge, DNA databank fee, and crime victim assistance fee imposed by County Court must be vacated because defendant is a juvenile offender … . People v Works, 2019 NY Slip Op 02247, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

, , , ,

IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined that videotaped deposition testimony from proceedings in other states was not admissible in the New York action. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent died from exposure to asbestos in a joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific. An employee of Georgia-Pacific, Charles Lehnert, who was familiar with the formula for the joint compound, gave the videotaped deposition testimony:

CPLR 3117 (a) (3) provides, in relevant part, that “any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used . . . by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had the notice required under these rules.” Here, defendant was permitted to introduce deposition testimony given by Lehnert in the 2007 Texas state court action for the purpose of demonstrating that it contradicted the 2001 and 2003 testimony that plaintiff had been permitted to introduce as part of its case-in-chief. However, although defendant was a party to the 2007 Texas action, plaintiff was not, and he had no opportunity to be present and cross-examine Lehnert. Thus, this testimony was not admissible under CPLR 3117 (a) (3) … . …

Although defendant did not cross-appeal, our holding reversing Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Lehnert’s 2007 testimony necessarily brings up for review Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to preclude Lehnert’s 2001 and 2003 testimony (seeCPLR 5501 [a] [1] …). Upon review, we find that none of Lehnert’s deposition testimony should have been admitted into evidence at this trial. Although a live witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent testimony, Lehnert never testified for any party in this action, either at the trial itself or at any pretrial deposition. He was merely a witness who had testified years ago in multiple other states on the subject of the content of Georgia-Pacific joint compound. Rather than calling him (or any other witness) to testify on this topic, both parties resorted to retrieving video of Lehnert’s testimony in those earlier actions and selectively playing those portions they believed supported their respective contentions. The jury was essentially asked to determine whether Lehnert, an empty chair in New York, testified more credibly in Illinois or Texas. In this scenario, CPLR 3117 (a) (2) did not permit plaintiff to introduce the 2001 and 2003 depositions on his case-in-chief, and CPLR 3117 (c) did not permit defendant to impeach those depositions with another deposition. Billok v Union Carbide Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02185, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENDANT LACKED STANDING, OTHER GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION NOT RAISED BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon he dropped should not have been denied on the ground defendant lacked standing and defense counsel should not have been precluded from cross-examining a police officer about allegations made in a federal civil suit against him.  The First Department noted it could not consider alternative grounds for suppression not raised below:

Two officers testified at the hearing to the effect that the pistol was recovered immediately after it fell from defendant’s person. Since this Court lacks jurisdiction to affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the pistol on the alternative ground that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him, a ground upon which the hearing court did not rule, we “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to Supreme Court for further proceedings”… .

Defendant is also entitled to a new trial, because the trial court improperly precluded his counsel from cross-examining the only police officer who allegedly saw the pistol falling from his person about allegations raised in a federal civil action against the officer, which had settled. Counsel had a good faith basis for seeking to impeach the officer’s credibility by asking him about allegations that he and other officers approached and assaulted the plaintiff in that case without any basis for suspecting him of posing a danger and filed baseless criminal charges against him … . Although trial courts “retain broad discretion” over the admission of prior bad acts allegedly committed by a police witness or other witness … , the court improvidently exercised its discretion by entirely precluding any cross-examination about the allegations at issue here without any valid … . People v Holmes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02033, First Dept 3-19-19

 

,

SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING, MATTER SENT BACK, BECAUSE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE IS IMPLICATED THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court did not make the appropriate findings in support of imposing electronic monitoring as a condition probation. The matter was sent back. The court noted that the issue involves the legality of the sentence and therefore need not be preserved for appeal:

A sentencing court imposing probation may require the defendant, pursuant to the statute, to submit to electronic monitoring (see § 65.10 [4]). “Such condition may be imposed only where the court, in its discretion, determines that requiring the defendant to comply with such condition will advance public safety, probationer control or probationer surveillance” (id.). Here, the court failed to make such a determination. To the contrary, it is evident from our review of the sentencing minutes that the court did not consider defendant or his actions to pose a threat to public safety. There may, however, be a legitimate purpose for the electronic monitoring based on probationer control or probationer surveillance. Therefore, we modify the judgment by striking the condition of probation requiring that defendant submit to surveillance via electronic monitoring and pay the fees associated therewith, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to make a discretionary determination whether to impose electronic monitoring based on appropriate findings. People v Fitch, 2019 NY Slip Op 01973, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) defendants’ oral application requesting a jury trial, made one day late, should have been granted, and (2) the appeal from a final judgment allows an appeal of the denial of the late application for a jury trial, even though no formal motion on notice was made. The dissent argued the denial was not appealable because there was no formal motion on notice:

An appeal from a final judgment “brings up for review . . . any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The parties do not dispute that the order denying defendants’ application for leave to file a late demand for a jury trial necessarily affected the final judgment. …

… [T]he State Constitution provides for a right to a jury trial in civil cases (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). Although that right may be waived through the failure to demand it in a timely fashion (see CPLR 4102 [a]), the court “may relieve a party from the effect” of such waiver “if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result” (CPLR 4102 [e]). While “[t]he decision . . . to relieve a party from failing to timely comply with CPLR 4102 (a) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … , we conclude that the court’s denial of defendants’ application was an abuse of discretion. Braun v Cesareo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01962, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, ,

THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM A DEFAULT STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO APPEAR, MUST MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal, explained that where a party in default for failing to appear wishes to appeal, the party must first move to vacate the default:

Respondent appeared by telephone before the Support Magistrate for arraignment, an appearance and a hearing, following which the Support Magistrate concluded that respondent had willfully violated the support order and recommended that he be incarcerated. The matter was referred to Family Court for confirmation. Respondent requested permission to give electronic testimony. Family Court denied that application both in writing and orally and directed, on the record, that respondent must appear in person for the hearing. When respondent did not appear, the court conducted the hearing in his absence, found that he willfully violated the support order and committed him to jail for 180 days. Respondent appeals.

Family Court properly found respondent in default … . Although respondent’s counsel appeared and offered the explanation that respondent could not afford to travel to New York, the court had already heard and rejected that excuse in connection with respondent’s application to give electronic testimony and directed him to appear in person for the hearing. When respondent failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in default  … . “[T]he proper procedure would be for [respondent] to move to vacate the default and, if said motion is denied, take an appeal from that order” … . Because no appeal lies from an order entered on default, we must dismiss this appeal … . Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Beke, 2019 NY Slip Op 01864, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

,

30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal (CPLR 5513(a)) is triggered for all parties when any party serves the other parties with the order or judgment appealed from with written notice of entry:

This appeal provides our Court with an occasion to clarify the meaning of CPLR 5513(a). The 1996 amendment to CPLR 5513(a), effective January 1, 1997, requires that an order or judgment be served “by a party” with written notice of entry in order to commence the time to undertake an appeal (L 1996, ch 214, § 1). … [W]e hold that service of the order or judgment with written notice of entry by any party upon the other parties to the action operates to commence the 30-day time to appeal with respect to not only the serving party, but all the parties in the action. * * *​

… [T]he language of CPLR 5513(a) as to who serves notice of entry is not limited to the “prevailing party,” or to “the appealing party,” or to “the party seeking to limit an adversary’s appellate time.” Rather, “a” party, which is unrestricted, necessarily refers to “any” party to an action. As a result, the service of an order or judgment with written notice of entry commences the 30-day time to appeal as to not only the party performing the service, but as to all other parties as well.

Here, the County’s [defendant’s] service on June 17, 2015, of the Supreme Court’s order with written notice of entry commenced the plaintiffs’ time to appeal the order as to all of the defendants, including those who served a notice of entry at a later date, and those who may have served no notice of entry at all. The plaintiffs’ appeal must therefore be dismissed as untimely as to all of the defendants (see CPLR 5513[a]). W. Rogowski Farm, LLC v County of Orange, 2019 NY Slip Op 01815, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

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