You are here: / Appeals
,

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

The Third Department, after noting that orders issued upon default are not appealable, determined mother, contrary to Family Court’s ruling, was not in default and therefore the order could be appealed:

​

In the circumstances presented, the mother was not required to seek to vacate the default judgment before taking this appeal. A party may not appeal from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511), but a party’s absence does not necessarily constitute a default, “particularly where counsel appears upon the absent party’s behalf and offers an explanation for his or her failure to attend” (… . Here, the mother’s counsel appeared and advised Family Court that he had communicated with the mother several times by phone and email, that she was then at a considerable distance in either Florida or South Carolina, and that she had a limited income. The mother’s counsel further advised the court relative to the mother’s position in the matter and participated in the proceedings by consenting to the requested relief, that is, to permit the child to remain temporarily with the father. Counsel also unsuccessfully requested a continuance, and ultimately advised that he did not have authority to consent to a final order of permanent physical placement to the father. In light of these circumstances, we find that the mother was not in default and that the order is appealable … . Matter of Linger v Linger, 2017 NY Slip Op 03822, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/APPEALS (FAMILY COURT, DEFAULT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/DEFAULT (FAMILY COURT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION.

The Fourth Department held the case in reserve to allow County Court to rule on other issues raised in opposition to defendant’s suppression motion, but specifically found County Court’s ruling the statement was admissible as “spontaneous” was error:

“Volunteered statements are admissible provided the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity and [the statements were] not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” … . Such statements must be proven to be “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause, . . . [and] it must at least be shown that they were in no way the product of an interrogation environment’ ” … . “Rather, [the statement] must satisfy the test for a blurted out admission, a statement which is in effect forced upon the officer” … .

Here, defendant’s statement was provoked or encouraged by the presentation or discussion of evidence suggestive of his criminal conduct, and we thus conclude that it cannot be deemed “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause” … . “Although there may be other reasons to justify the denial of defendant’s motion, the only issues that we may consider on this appeal are those that may have adversely affected the appellant’ ” … . We therefore hold this case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to rule upon any other issues raised by the People in opposition to the motion. People v Ibarrondo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03643, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)

,

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, OFFICER WAS TOLD WHO THE POLICE WERE SEEKING TO IDENTIFY BEFORE VIEWING A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL IN THE MOTION PAPERS, IT IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE COUNTY COURT ADDRESSED IT. 

The Fourth Department, reserving on the appeal until County Court rules on other issues related to the suppression of the identification of the defendant, determined County Court erred when it concluded the identification of the defendant by a parole officer viewing a surveillance video was not an unduly suggestive procedure. The Fourth Department first noted that the issue was not preserved for appeal by the motion papers, but was appealable because County Court considered the issue in its findings. The Fourth Department held the procedure unduly suggestive because the parole officer was told who the police were seeking to identify before viewing the video:

… [W]e agree with defendant that, contrary to the court’s determination that “[t]here was no influence or suggestion” by the investigator, the evidence establishes that the investigator suggested to the parole officer prior to her identification that the person depicted committing the robbery on the surveillance video was defendant … . Instead of requesting the parole officer’s assistance in identifying someone from the video without preemptively disclosing the subject of his investigation, the investigator engaged in a conversation “about her being a parole officer for [defendant].” During the conversation, the investigator “asked [the parole officer] if she was familiar with [defendant].” The parole officer responded that she had “lots of contact” with defendant, so the investigator proceeded to ask her to “come down and view a video.” The investigator subsequently met with the parole officer at the police department and asked her to view the video to determine if she recognized anyone, and the parole officer identified defendant as the person committing the robbery. We conclude that the investigator, by contacting the parole officer and inquiring about her familiarity with defendant prior to the parole officer’s viewing of the video, engaged in … undue suggestiveness … inasmuch as his comments improperly suggested to the parole officer that the person she was about to view was a particular acquaintance of hers, i.e., defendant … . People v Gambale, 2017 NY Slip Op 03658, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

,

A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER.

The Fourth Department noted that the sentencing court did not have the power to enhance defendant’s sentence for refusing to sign a waiver of appeal because the plea agreement did not call for a written waiver:

While waiving the right to appeal was a condition of the plea bargain, the execution of a written waiver was not, and thus the court was not empowered to enhance the sentence on that ground … . We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the term of imprisonment from a determinate term of 25 years to a determinate term of 20 years, and the period of postrelease supervision from 5 years to 2½ years, in accordance with the plea agreement. People v Days, 2017 NY Slip Op 03632, 4th Dept 5-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER, A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER)

,

LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL.

The First Department determined the loss of the stenographic notes for the last day of the bench trial and sentencing did not preclude appeal:

​

Although the stenographic notes of the last day of the trial and the sentencing proceeding have been lost and no transcript is available for those dates, a reconstruction hearing sufficed to protect defendant’s right to appeal. The judge’s notes from the last day of trial, the prosecutor’s detailed outline of her summation and trial counsel’s affirmation, which were placed in the record at the hearing, provided an adequate basis to determine whether appealable issues existed … . The fact that this was a nonjury trial, where the factfinder is presumed to have disregarded prejudicial matter … , weighs strongly against the concern that the missing minutes may have revealed appealable issues. People v Zuniga, 2017 NY Slip Op 03264, 1st Dept 4-27-17

​

CRIMINAL LAW (LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/TRANSCRIPT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)

,

COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN.

The Third Department noted that it was improper for County Court to require defendant to waive his right to appeal because there was no agreement associated with his guilty plea:

… [I]it was improper for County Court to require defendant to waive his right to appeal, as the record establishes that “there was no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration given to . . . defendant in exchange for his plea” … . As such, defendant’s challenge to the sentence is not precluded. People v Tarver, 2017 NY Slip Op 03079, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)

,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL.

The Third Department determined County Count did not have the authority to amend a defective conspiracy count by allowing the People to add an overt act. The court entertained the issue even though it was not preserved and it was not raised on appeal. The Third Department had made the same ruling in the codefendant’s (Placido’s) appeal:

​

In connection with Placido’s appeal, this Court has held that count 2 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective and that County Court lacked the authority to grant the People’s motion to amend that count … ). In light of the fact that count 2 of the indictment was identical in respect to Placido and defendant, it necessarily follows that this Court’s holding in People v Placido … applies with equal force to defendant. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not raise this issue before County Court and does not raise it on appeal, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse defendant’s conviction for conspiracy in the fourth degree. People v Deleon, 2017 NY Slip Op 02848, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/INDICTMENTS (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)

,

TRIAL JUDGE’S GRANT OF A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS ERROR, HOWEVER THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined the People did not have statutory authority to appeal the grant of a trial order of dismissal after a mistrial had been declared because the jury could not reach a verdict. The Fourth Department explicitly stated that it had reviewed the evidence and found it legally sufficient to support the charge (murder). The trial order of dismissal, then, should not have been granted. But there was no mechanism for the People to appeal the error:

“It is fundamental that in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing a criminal appeal, there is no right to appeal” … . CPL 450.20, the “exclusive route for a People’s appeal” … , does not authorize this appeal. Contrary to the People’s contention, CPL 450.20 (2) does not provide the statutory basis for this appeal, inasmuch as the order they seek to appeal did not set aside a guilty verdict and dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (b). Rather, there was no guilty verdict to set aside, and the order was issued pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (a). Thus, the order is not appealable … . We may not “create a right to appeal out of thin air” in order to address the merits “without trespassing on the Legislature’s domain and undermining the structure of article 450 of the CPL—the definite and particular enumeration of all appealable orders” … . Were we able to review the merits, however, we would agree with the People that the court erred in dismissing the indictment. A “review [of] the legal sufficiency of the evidence as defined by CPL 70.10 (1), [while] accepting the competent evidence as true, in the light most favorable to the People,” compels the conclusion that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge … . People v Tan, 2017 NY Slip Op 02541, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

,

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff, a Broadway musical producer, alleged defendant made false statements implicating plaintiff in investor fraud (committed by a nonparty). The court noted that the law of the case doctrine applies only to courts of coordinate jurisdiction, not to the appellate courts:

The tortious interference claim was properly sustained insofar as it was premised on emails sent by defendant to a key investor, but not insofar as it was premised on comments made by defendant’s attorney that were quoted in various news articles.

As to the emails, plaintiff adequately pled that defendant’s conduct was unlawful or for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on plaintiff … – as we observed in a related action premised on these same emails (see Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton, 143 AD3d 71, 77 [1st Dept 2016]). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, in sending the emails, defendant misappropriated confidential information he was privy to as a result of his position as the musical’s press agent and committed the independent tort of defamation … . Sprecher v Thibodeau, 2017 NY Slip Op 02519, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE SANDOVAL RULING AT TRIAL, THE OBJECTION WAS NOT ON THE PRECISE GROUND RAISED ON APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS THEREFORE NOT PRESERVED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined defendant’s objection to a Sandoval ruling about the admissibility of evidence of a juvenile delinquency adjudication did not preserve the precise issue which was the subject of the appeal. The concurring opinion argued the error had been preserved, but was harmless. The People sought to introduce evidence of the facts underlying the juvenile delinquency adjudication, but not the adjudication itself. The defendant objected arguing that the defendant should not be judged by actions taken when his mind and values were undeveloped. The court ruled the People could elicit the fact that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, but could not elicit the facts. On appeal defendant argued it was a legal error to admit evidence of the juvenile delinquency adjudication:

Under the unique factual circumstances of this case and based on the trial court’s colloquy with counsel, we conclude that defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling is unpreserved. Defendant did not make the argument he now asserts at the time of the alleged erroneous ruling, or at any time at all. Instead, he argued, against the People’s initial proffer, that the court should deny the request because defendant’s actions should not be judged based on a young offender’s undeveloped mind and sense of values. Defendant failed to argue that it would be legal error to permit the People to elicit that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent … . Defendant did not make that argument before or after the compromise ruling, or at any point during the proceedings “when the court had the ‘opportunity of effectively chang[ing]’ its ruling” … and avoiding the error of which defendant now complains. People v Jackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 02361, CtApp 3-28-17

 

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