You are here: / Attorneys
,

Invocation of Right to Counsel When Not in Custody Can Be Withdrawn Without Attorney Present

The Third Department determined defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel when he was not in custody (on September 4, 2004) could be withdrawn without an attorney present and did not, therefore, require the suppression of subsequent statements made three weeks later:

The right to counsel indelibly attaches in two limited situations – where formal judicial proceedings against a defendant have commenced and where an uncharged defendant, who is in custody, has retained or requested an attorney … .  However, “[a] suspect who is not in custody when he or she invokes the right to counsel can withdraw the request and be questioned by the police” … .  As defendant was not in custody at the time he invoked his right to counsel on September 4, 2009, he was free to withdraw that request or waive such right and speak with the police without having an attorney present – particularly in view of the approximately three weeks that elapsed between his initial request for an attorney and his subsequent statements to law enforcement … . People v Cade, 103443, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

, , ,

Effect of Witness’ Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege on Fairness Explained

The Second Department explained when a witness’ asserting the privilege against self-incrimination constitutes reversible error and noted that the introduction of a photograph of the murder victim when he was alive was (harmless) error:

“[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” … . “Absent a conscious and flagrant attempt by the prosecutor to build a case out of the inferences arising from the use of the testimonial privilege or without some indication that the witness’s refusal to testify adds critical weight to the People’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, reversal is not warranted” … . Under the circumstances presented here, invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by a prosecution witness did not add critical weight to the prosecution’s case, and the defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial by that testimony… .  People v Berry, 2013 NY Slip Op 06872, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

,

Ineffective Assistance On Suppression Issues—Case Sent Back

The Court of Appeals, over two dissenters, determined defendant had not been provided with effective assistance counsel with respect to the motion to suppress and suppression hearing.  The court sent the matter back to properly consider the suppression issues, stating that if defendant prevailed on suppression the conviction should be vacated and the indictment dismissed:

In his written motion requesting a hearing, counsel misstated the facts relating to the arrest, indicating that defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle stop rather than a street encounter with police.  At the suppression hearing, the attorney did not marshal the facts for the court and made no legal argument.  This, coupled with his failure to make appropriate argument in his motion papers or to submit a posthearing memorandum, meant that the defense never supplied the hearing court with any legal rationale for granting suppression. Moreover, after the court issued a decision describing the sequence of events in a manner that differed significantly from the testimony of the police officer (the only witness at the hearing) and was adverse to the defense, defendant’s attorney made no motion to reargue or otherwise correct the court’s apparent factual error.  Counsel never ascertained whether the court decided the motion based on the hearing proof or a misunderstanding of the officer’s uncontradicted testimony.

And this is not a case where any of these errors can be explained as part of a strategic design (assuming one could be imagined), given that defense counsel asked to be relieved, informing the court that he was unable to provide competent representation to defendant.  Thus, although the attorney secured a hearing, his representation in relation to the application as a whole was deficient in so many respects — both before, during and after the proceeding — that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation at a critical stage of this prosecution.  People v Clermont, 166, CtApp 10-22-13

 

,

Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal

The Third Department determined defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring that defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea be granted, and the postindictment delay, for which the People had no adequate excuse, required that the indictment be dismissed:

A Washington County grand jury handed up a four-count sealed indictment in October 2011 charging defendant with criminal sale and possession of controlled substances occurring in September and November 2010.  An arrest warrant was issued and provided to the State Police, who for well over six months were reportedly unable to locate defendant, who had relocated, until he was arrested during a traffic stop in Chautauqua County, where he had been residing.  He was arraigned on the indictment on June 14, 2012. * * *

…[D]efendant’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim was preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea and adequately alleges that it impacted the voluntariness of his plea and appeal waiver, so as to survive both … .  Thus, we address defendant’s speedy trial claim in the context of ascertaining whether he was deprived of meaningful representation, mindful that “[a] single error of failing to raise a meritorious speedy trial claim [may be] sufficiently egregious to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel” … . * * *

The People’s fleeting description of the efforts made to locate defendant fell far short of “all reasonable efforts to enforce judicially issued warrants” … required to satisfy the “due diligence” standard (CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]).  As such, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the statutory exclusion for this postindictment prereadiness delay … . Accordingly, all of this unready time would be chargeable to the People … . People v Devino, 105441, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Leading Questions and Elicitation of Hearsay in Grand Jury Proceedings Did Not Constitute Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Third Department reversed County Court and determined leading questions and elicitation of hearsay in the grand jury proceedings did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct:

“Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35 (5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury” … .  Contrary to County Court’s finding, the record as a whole does not reveal a “pervasive mishandling” of the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury.  To the extent that the prosecutor asked leading questions or elicited hearsay testimony from the various witnesses, we note that “not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective.  [Rather], the submission of some inadmissible evidence [typically] will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … .  Inasmuch as we are satisfied – based upon our review of the grand jury minutes – that there otherwise is legally sufficient (and admissible) evidence to sustain count 1 of the indictment, the isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions, do not warrant dismissal thereof … .  We similarly are persuaded that the prosecutor’s limited use of leading questions did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceeding… . People v Miller, 105721, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

, ,

Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (over a substantial partial dissent which dealt with defense counsel’s antagonistic behavior toward the judge and degrading comments about the defendant), the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge, who had represented the defendant in the past on an unrelated matter (about which the judge had no specific memory), properly denied defendant’s recusal request which alleged bias on the judge’s part:

Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law § 14, a judge’s decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion … .  “This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of nonjuridical data” … .  We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” … .  People v Glynn, 155, CtApp 10-17-13

 

, ,

Assignment of Counsel Required Before Determining Whether Appeal Should Be Dismissed as Untimely

The Court of Appeals determined the appellate division was required to assign counsel upon a showing of indigency before ruling on whether defendant’s first-tier appeal as of right should be dismissed for failure to meet the timeliness requirement in the 2nd Department’s rules:

In this case, the Appellate Division erroneously failed to assign counsel to represent defendant before dismissing his first-tier appeal as of right based on his failure to timely perfect it.  Notwithstanding the Appellate Division’s rule mandating automatic dismissal of an untimely perfected appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [f]), its decision to dismiss the appeal here remained a discretionary determination on the merits of a threshold issue on defendant’s first-tier And an appellate court had not yet passed on, nor had counsel presented, defendant’s appellate claims with respect to dismissal or any other matter, thus leaving defendant ill equipped to represent himself. Because the factors cited in Douglas [372 US 387], Halbert [545 US 605] and Taveras [463 F3d 141], are present in the instant case, the Appellate Division was required to assign defendant an attorney upon a showing of indigence in order to enable him to oppose the court’s motion to dismiss his first-tier appeal as of right, and the court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent defendant without considering his indigency or the merits of dismissal warrants reversal and reinstatement of defendant’s appeal.  Upon remittal to the Appellate Division, that court should decide whether defendant is indigent pursuant to CPLR 1101.  If defendant establishes his indigence, the court must assign counsel to litigate the dismissal motion, and the court should determine, in its discretion, whether dismissal is appropriate. appeal, rather than an automatic bar to appeal … . People v Kordish, 252, CtApp 10-17-2013

 

,

Failure to Exercise Peremptory Challenge Not Ineffective Assistance

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the failure to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror (Peters) who was a long-time friend of the prosecuting attorney did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel:

…[D]efendant can prevail on his ineffective assistance claim only by showing that this is one of those very rare cases in which a single error by otherwise competent counsel was so serious that it deprived defendant of his constitutional right (see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 478 [2005]).  We held in Turner that this had occurred where a lawyer overlooked “a defense as clear-cut and completely dispositive as a statute of limitations” (id. at 481).  The mistake that defendant accuses defense counsel of making here was not of that magnitude.

It could be argued that counsel’s decision not to use a peremptory challenge on Peters was a mistake for two reasons: because Peters, as a juror, would be biased in the prosecution’s favor; and because, by not using a peremptory challenge to excuse him, counsel failed to preserve for appeal any claim that the court erred in rejecting the for-cause challenge.  We consider those arguments separately.

The first argument is a weak one, because defense counsel may reasonably have thought Peters an acceptable juror from the defense point of view.  * * *

The second argument — that counsel erred by failing to preserve the issue of the for-cause challenge for appeal — gives us somewhat more pause.  The trial court’s decision to deny the challenge for cause may have been error … .  Counsel’s choice not to exercise a peremptory challenge deprived defendant of the opportunity to make that argument on appeal; under CPL 270.20 (2), where a defendant has not exhausted his peremptory challenges, a denial of a challenge for cause “does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant . . . peremptorily challenges such prospective juror.” Considering the poor odds of acquittal that defendant was facing, it is hard to see how keeping a particular juror — no matter how strong defense counsel’s hunch that he would be favorable -could justify the loss of a significant appellate argument.

We conclude, however, that counsel’s mistake, if it was one, was not the sort of “egregious and prejudicial” error that amounts to a deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel… . People v Thompson, 144, CtApp 10-10-13

 

,

Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 2001, to allow the filing and serving of a summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff had timely attempted to file the summons and complaint using a new electronic filing system in Westchester County. It turned out that plaintiff’s counsel had mistakenly used a “practice” filing system designed to familiarize users with electronic filing and the summons and complaint was never actually filed in time.  The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to be allowed to cure the mistake under CPLR 2001 should have been granted after explaining that, in this case, CPLR 2001 should be to correct an error without concern for whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the correction:

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s e-filing error cannot be corrected, as doing so would prejudice the defendant by depriving her of a viable statute of limitations defense. However, we conclude that under a proper reading of CPLR 2001, the issue of prejudice to the defendant need not be reached.

More specifically, we believe that many reported cases in New York reflect a misreading of the language of CPLR 2001. Judicial discretion and the absence of prejudice are not requirements that must be applied in a combined fashion. Rather, a close reading of the statute reveals that CPLR 2001 recognizes two separate forms of potential relief to address mistakes, omissions, defects, or irregularities in the filing of papers. The statute distinguishes between the “correction” of mistakes and the “disregarding” of mistakes, and each invokes a different test. Courts may “correct[ ]” mistakes “upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 2001). The statute then says, set off by an “or,” that mistakes may be “disregarded” if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . Thus, a “correction” of a mistake appears to be subject to a broader degree of judicial discretion without necessary regard to prejudice, whereas a complete “disregarding” of a mistake must not prejudice an opposing party. … The distinction between simply correcting a mistake and overlooking a mistake makes sense, as a party seeking to wholly disregard a filing mistake may understandably be expected to bear a higher burden than a party seeking a mere correction.

A secondary inquiry, therefore, is whether the plaintiff’s request for a nunc pro tunc recognition of his filing in the NYSCEF “practice” system amounts to a mere correction that may be permitted upon terms that may be just, or whether it constitutes a full-scale disregard of the filing error that, in order to be permitted, requires a showing that the defendant will not be prejudiced by the disregard.

… [Here] [t]he “filing” was performed in a mistaken manner and method, which courts are permitted to correct on terms that may be just … . Therefore, the plaintiff was under no burden to demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the defendant. In contrast, excusing a clearly untimely filing would constitute the disregarding of an error, which could not be permitted because it would be prejudicial to a defendant to deprive it of a legitimate statute of limitations defense. Grskovic v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 06545, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Charging Lien on Settlement Award Allowed—Attorney Withdrew By Mutual Consent

In affirming the validity a charging lien on a settlement award on behalf of an attorney who had withdrawn from the case upon mutual consent the Second Department wrote:

“Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, [w]hen an action is commenced, the attorney appearing for a party obtains a lien upon his or her client’s causes of action . . . This lien attaches to any final order or settlement in the client’s favor'” … . ” Where an attorney’s representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien'” … . Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that his representation … was terminated upon mutual consent, and that there had been no misconduct, discharge for cause, or unjustified abandonment on his part. Tangredi v Warsop, 2013 NY Slip Op 06559, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

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