You are here: / Appeals
,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT.

Although the issue was not raised on appeal, the Fourth Department determined the failure to follow the procedure for sentencing a second felony offender required resentencing:

We address the illegality of “the sentence . . . despite defendant’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court or on appeal” … . The presentence report available to the court and uncontested by the parties at sentencing indicates that defendant had been convicted of a prior felony for which he may have been sentenced within the 10-year period preceding commission of the first count of CSCS in the third degree, as tolled by Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (v) and excluding from that statutory period the time during which defendant was incarcerated on the prior felony … . Where, as here, “information available to the court or to the [P]eople prior to sentencing for a felony indicate[d] that . . . defendant may have previously been subjected to a predicate felony conviction” … , “the People were required to file a second felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.21 and, if appropriate, the court was then required to sentence defendant as a second felony offender” …  The People nevertheless failed to file a second felony offender statement herein, and the court illegally sentenced defendant, a known predicate felon, as a first felony drug offender … . Moreover, as the People correctly concede, if defendant was properly sentenced as a first felony drug offender, the imposition of three years of postrelease supervision is illegal because the applicable period for such an offender upon conviction of a class B felony is “not less than one year and no more than two years” … . Inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law. People v Mattice, 2017 NY Slip Op 05558, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)

,

ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined that the town’s attempt obtain an injunction requiring respondents to tear down structures which violated the zoning code was invalid. The action was brought by an order to show cause, but no summons or complaint had been filed. Therefore the courts did not have jurisdiction over the matter:

“[T]he valid commencement of an action is a condition precedent to [Supreme Court’s] acquiring the jurisdiction even to entertain an application for a[n] . . . injunction”… . Here, however, there is no action supporting the application for an injunction. Indeed, the order to show cause and supporting papers themselves constitute the only request for an injunction. While ” courts are empowered and indeed directed to convert a civil judicial proceeding not brought in the proper form into one which would be in proper form, rather than to grant a dismissal’ “… , more than improper form is involved here … . Converting the order to show cause and supporting papers into a summons and complaint in these circumstances would effectively permit the Town to seek an injunction by motion, a result that is at odds with the well-established principle that “[t]he pendency of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of a[n] . . . injunction” … . We thus conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Town’s request … . Without an underlying action the order putatively on appeal does not constitute an appealable paper… . The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Matter of Town of Cicero v Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05524, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/INJUNCTIONS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/JURISDICTION (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)

,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE ISSUES AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA UPON LEARNING OF THE ERROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. ​

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was told he could appeal the court’s ruling that the grand jury minutes constituted legally sufficient evidence of the charges in the indictment. However the denial of a motion to dismiss arguing the insufficiency or inadmissibility of the grand jury evidence is not appealable after a guilty plea:

We agree with defendant … that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” … . It is nevertheless well established that a guilty plea is not invalid merely because the court “failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea” … . Where the record establishes, however, that the court incorrectly advised the defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea, the resulting plea “must be vacated because it was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered” … .

Here, the court incorrectly advised defendant with respect to the rights that defendant was forfeiting in pleading guilty. It is well established that a defendant who pleads guilty may not challenge on appeal the sufficiency or the admissibility of the evidence before the grand jury … . The record establishes, however, that defendant asked to be assured that he could raise those issues on appeal from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty, and the court assured him that he could do so. Given those assurances, which ended up being false, defendant accepted the plea deal, and entered a guilty plea. When defendant learned that he would not be able to raise on appeal the above grand jury issues, he made a motion to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. Under the circumstances, that was error. People v Colon, 2017 NY Slip Op 05343, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

MULTIPLICITOUS COUNTS OF SEX OFFENSE INDICTMENT DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE COUNTS CHARGED SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED OFFENSES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO TWO COUNTS EACH.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, determined several counts of the sex offense indictment were multiplicitous and therefore must be dismissed. The defendant was charged with two counts for single uninterrupted events, touching the victim’s vagina while simultaneously having the victim touch his penis:

An indictment is multiplicitous “when a single offense is charged in more than one count”… . A person commits the criminal offense of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects a person under 11 years old to sexual contact … . Nevertheless, a defendant may not be charged with separate counts of sexual abuse in the first degree for each instance of unlawful sexual contact where the instances of sexual contact constitute “a single, uninterrupted criminal act”  … . Here, for each instance of defendant touching a victim’s vagina, defendant was properly charged with a single and distinct count. By contrast, for each instance of defendant compelling a victim to touch his penis while defendant was simultaneously touching that victim’s vagina, defendant was charged with two separate counts. Charging two separate counts under those facts was improper inasmuch as the actions alleged in each pair of counts constituted a single, uninterrupted criminal act. We thus conclude that the indictment was multiplicitous, and we therefore dismiss counts 2, 5, 13 through 17, and 25 through 28 of indictment No. 5548 … . People v Sprague, 2017 NY Slip Op 05347, 4th dept 6-30-17

 

, ,

TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied because the issue could have been appealed. Defendant pled guilty to three counts charging robbery second. However the underlying factual allegations for two of the counts only supported robbery third. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive five year terms of imprisonment, one for each robbery second count. The issue was not raised on appeal and a writ of error coram nobis was denied:

FROM THE DISSENT:

I understand that we are constrained by CPL 440.10(2)(2), which provides that a court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the ground or issue raised upon the motion could have been raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and the defendant unjustifiably failed to do so … . Here, the defendant, although represented by appellate counsel, failed to raise, on his direct appeal, the meritorious issues he now raises on his CPL 440.10 motion … . The defendant filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. However, that application was summarily denied … . Under these unique circumstances, where the defendant has no other apparent avenue of relief in the New York State court system, it would be fundamentally unfair and unjust to apply the procedural bar set forth in CPL 440.10 to his claims.

Accordingly, while I understand the reasoning the majority applies in reaching its determination, I cannot join it, and must respectfully dissent. People v McKenzie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05243, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

,

THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​

The First Department determined the seizure of a knife from the defendant was not the result of a valid search incident to arrest. Because the People also argued the seizure was justified for officer safety, but the suppression court did not rule on that issue, the matter was remitted:

Although the record supports a finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault based on reliable information from the assault victim, the People failed to meet their burden … of demonstrating that the officer intended to arrest defendant for the assault at the time he recovered the knife … . The officer’s testimony, viewed as a whole, indicates that, when he noticed the knife upon approaching defendant and retrieved it from defendant’s pocket, the officer’s intent was to inquire about the assault in order to verify that defendant was indeed the man who had assaulted the victim. Further, it was not until after the officer had retrieved the knife and confirmed that it was a gravity knife that he asked about the assault.

The People argue, in the alternative, as they did at the hearing, that the officer’s act of taking the knife from defendant’s pocket, where the handle of the knife and its clip were in plain view, was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion … . . However, as the hearing court did not rule on this issue in denying the suppression motion, and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point, we may not reach it on this appeal … . People v Simmons, 2017 NY Slip Op 05179, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

,

DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, in the absence of preservation of the error, determined the plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime. Unlawful possession of a weapon requires an intent to use the weapon unlawfully. Although such intent can be presumed, here defendant expressly negated it:

​

This is a “rare case” where the preservation requirement for challenges to guilty pleas does not apply because “defendant’s factual recitation negate[d] an essential element of the crime pleaded to” and the court “accept[ed] the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant underst[ood] the nature of the charge and that the plea [was] intelligently entered” .. . The crime of attempted possession of a weapon in the second degree requires that a defendant intend to use the weapon unlawfully against another. However, during the plea colloquy, defendant explicitly, repeatedly and consistently denied any intent to use the weapon against anyone, lawfully or otherwise, at the time the police recovered it or at any other time. The court asked followup questions, but they were ineffectual because defendant’s responses only reconfirmed that he expressly denied having the requisite intent. Although an express admission of unlawful intent may not have been necessary in the first place, particularly because such intent is presumed (see Penal Law § 265.15[4]), defendant expressly negated that intent. People v Medina-Feliz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05053, 1st Dept 6-20-17

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/APPEALS, (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/GUILTY PLEA (DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/WEAPON POSSESSION (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON REQUIRES AN INTENT TO USE THE WEAPON UNLAWFULLY, EXPRESS DENIAL OF THAT ELEMENT REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GUILTY PLEA)

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was not accorded the opportunity to contest the constitutionality of a prior conviction. Therefore the sentence as a second felony offender was vacated even though the error was not preserved for review (interest of justice). Defendant was not provided with a statement of conviction. The fact that the prior conviction was an element of the charged offense in a special information did not obviate the need for a statement of conviction:

​

…[D]defendant contends that the People failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.15 in seeking to have him sentenced as a second violent felony offender inasmuch as they did not file a predicate felony offender statement as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Although that contention is not preserved for our review… , we nonetheless exercise our discretion to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Contrary to the assertion of the prosecutor at sentencing, “the need for a predicate felony offender statement was not obviated by defendant’s pretrial admission to a special information setting forth his prior felony conviction as an element of a count charging criminal possession of a weapon. The special information did not permit defendant to raise constitutional challenges to his prior conviction, as he had the right to do before being sentenced as a second felony offender” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement pursuant to CPL 400.15 and resentencing. People v Edwards, 2017 NY Slip Op 04983, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/STATEMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SENTENCING, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)

, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department reversed the dismissal of this Labor Law retaliatory discharge cause of action in the interest of justice. The two-year statute of limitations ended on a Saturday. The action was commenced on the next business day (a Tuesday following Columbus Day), rendering the action timely. The correct calculation had not been raised below or on appeal:

​

Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on October 10, 2013, we note that the two-year statute of limitations period ended on a Saturday and therefore was extended until “the next succeeding business day” (General Construction Law § 25-a [1]…). Because Columbus Day fell on the Monday following that Saturday (see § 24), the next business day was October 13, 2015, the date on which the action was commenced. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore was timely.

Although plaintiff did not assert that calculation in opposing defendant’s motion before the motion court or on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider it sua sponte in the interest of justice … . As noted above, defendant had the burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired, and it could not refute that such period was extended by operation of law to October 13, 2015 … . Wilson v Exigence of Team Health, 2017 NY Slip Op 04993, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CALCULATION, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW (CALCULATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, with two concurring opinions, determined the trial judge properly resettled the record of the trial without holding a hearing. The original transcript indicated the jury was instructed the defendant was charged with “unintentional” murder. The prosecutor submitted an affirmation based upon a conversation with the court stenographer stating that the word “unintentional” was a typographical error and the stenographic notes reflected the word “intentional” was actually used. The stenographer submitted a certified corrected transcript:

​

Several factors support the Appellate Division’s conclusion that Supreme Court acted within its discretion to resettle the transcript on the basis of the information before it. The trial judge could rely not only on the reporter’s certification of the corrected transcript, but also on undisputed portions of that transcript, including: the accurate balance of the charge; the fact that two of the five alleged misstatements were attributed to defense counsel, not the court; and, most significantly, the repeated failure of any party to object to what would have been prominent misstatements of the law. Furthermore, as there was no suggestion during oral argument on the motion that any person present at the trial five years earlier could recollect what words were spoken, it is not clear what evidence beyond the reporter’s original stenographic notes might have been obtained through a hearing.

Although it would have been preferable for the court to have received an affidavit from the court reporter, rather than an affidavit of counsel recounting a conversation with that reporter, we cannot say that Supreme Court acted outside its discretion to resettle the transcript without a hearing. People v Bethune, 2017 NY Slip Op 04493, CtApp 6-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RESETTLING THE RECORD, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RESETTLING THE RECORD, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING)

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