You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s failure to investigate alibi evidence, failure to object to evidence which had been ruled off limits, and failure to impeach the complainant constituted ineffective assistance:

Under the circumstances of this case, where the determination of guilt hinged on sharp issues of credibility, we find that trial counsel lacked a strategic or legitimate justification for the failure to investigate the defendant’s alleged alibi defense … , and to present evidence to impeach the complainant’s testimony as to the duration and frequency of the alleged abuse … . Further, trial counsel failed to impeach the complainant with her sworn testimony given in the grand jury, which contradicted her trial testimony in various respects … . Notwithstanding a pretrial ruling by the court precluding the People from eliciting testimony regarding an early 2010 conversation about the alleged abuse between the complainant and her friend, trial counsel failed to object when such testimony was elicited at the trial. As such, counsel failed in his duty to protect the defendant’s interests by objecting to the People’s introduction of inadmissible evidence … . People v Ramos, 2021 NY Slip Op 03200, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES; HOWEVER THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, in a People’s appeal, determined the district attorney violated the Criminal Procedure Law by refusing to tell the grand jury defendant had requested that two witnesses give testimony, but the violation did not warrant dismissal of two counts of the indictment. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the district attorneys duties and discretion with respect to a defendant’s request for witness testimony before a grand jury:

… [A] prosecutor may not “suppress[ a] defendant’s request to call . . . witness[es] nor strip[ ] the grand jury of its discretion to grant or deny that request” … . Instead, “[a]lthough [a] prosecutor [cannot] avoid presenting [a requested] witness’s name for a vote, the prosecutor [is] free, in the role of advisor to the grand jury, to explain that the witness [does] not have relevant information [or] primarily offer[s] inadmissible hearsay testimony, and if unpersuasive in this effort, the prosecutor [may seek] a court order quashing the subpoena or limiting the witness’s testimony as provided in CPL 190.50 (3)” … . … [T]he court properly determined that the People, despite their stated concerns about the admissibility of the proposed testimony, violated their statutory obligation by refusing to present to the grand jury defendant’s request that two of the vehicle’s other occupants be called as witnesses. * * *

We … conclude that “this was not one of the rare cases of prosecutorial misconduct entitling a defendant to the exceptional remedy of dismissal, because there is no showing that, in the absence of the complained-of misconduct, the grand jury might have decided not to indict the defendant” … . … [T]he People did not engage in an overall pattern of willful and pervasive misconduct; instead, the failure to present defendant’s request for witnesses to the grand jury constituted an isolated instance of misconduct involving, at worst, the erroneous handling of an evidentiary matter, which “do[es] not merit invalidation of the indictment” … . People v Wilcox, 2021 NY Slip Op 02893, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, ,

THE LANGUAGE IN THE HIPAA FORM, INDICATING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN MAY BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEAK WITH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly approved language in the HIPAA form informing plaintiff’s physicians that they may but are not obligated to speak with defendant’s attorney:

Defendant offered … to accept revised authorizations that included the following language:

“the purpose of the requested interview with the physician is solely to assist defense counsel at trial. The physician is not obligated to speak with defense counsel prior to trial. The interview is voluntary.”

… [D]efendant moved … to compel plaintiff to provide revised authorizations. The court granted the motion … , directing plaintiff … to provide revised HIPAA-compliant authorizations containing defendant’s proposed language, unemphasized and in the same size font as the rest of the authorization. * * *

Here, the wording that was approved by the court is identical to the wording that previously met with the approval of the Second Department in Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr. (65 AD3d 176, 178 [2d Dept 2009]), it is similar to the language contained in the [Office of Court Administration’s] standard form, and there is no dispute that it is consistent with the applicable law. Sims v Reyes, 2021 NY Slip Op 02971, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the issue whether the probation officer’s search of defendant’s residence was improperly based solely on an anonymous tip was not preserved for appeal. In addition, the defendant did not demonstrate defense counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue. The dissent argued the record did not support the motion court’s finding the warrantless search was lawful and reasonable:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, he did not preserve that issue for our review through either that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress the evidence or his posthearing memorandum. A question of law with respect to a ruling of a suppression court is preserved for appeal when “a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same . . . , or if in response to a protest by a party, the court expressly decided the question raised on appeal” (CPL 470.05 [2] …). In his omnibus motion, defendant sought, inter alia, suppression of the evidence seized during the search on the ground that the evidence “was taken in violation of . . . defendant’s constitutional rights” inasmuch as it was done without “a search warrant or probable cause.” Those “broad challenges” are insufficient to preserve defendant’s present contention … . In defendant’s posthearing memorandum, he argued that the search was invalid because there was no warrant or consent to search, that the search was not rationally related to the duties of the officer, and that the parole officers were acting as police officers when conducting the search. He did not raise his present contention that the People were required to prove that the information provided to the officer satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test in order for the search to be lawful, even though he was then aware of the basis for the search … . Nor did the court expressly decide that issue … . People v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 02896, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT-SEX-OFFENDER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent-sex-offender in this civil commitment proceeding, who was properly allowed to represent himself with a Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) attorney as stand-by counsel, should not be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who had been victims of the respondent’s offenses. The cross-examination should be done by stand-by counsel:

… [A]llowing respondent to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses could thwart or impair petitioner’s ability to sustain its burden of proof by causing the witnesses to back out of testifying or by causing a “chilling effect” on their testimony. Moreover, petitioner has a compelling interest in protecting the victim witnesses from any possible retraumatization resulting from respondent personally conducting cross-examinations of them.

Upon balancing the foregoing Mathews factors, we find that, to the extent that respondent has a due process right to self-representation, such right does not entitle him to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses whom he was adjudicated or alleged to have victimized. Thus, notwithstanding respondent’s pro se status, the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses must be conducted by respondent’s standby counsel (MHLS) or, should respondent prefer, other court-appointed counsel. Matter of State of N.Y. v John T., 2021 NY Slip Op 02862, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO REQUEST A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined counsel’s failure to ask for a downward departure in the SORA risk level assessment proceeding did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel:

Assuming arguendo that in hindsight, the defendant’s counsel, instead of simply opposing the People’s request for an upward departure from the Board’s assessment of points, also should have expressly argued for a downward departure from the assessment of points contained in the People’s RAI, the omission was not so egregious or prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel … . The defendant has neither demonstrated the absence of a strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to request a downward departure, nor even addressed that issue in the pro se supplemental brief, as is necessary to sustain an ineffectiveness claim … . Further, depictions on the defendant’s phone included young girls who were toddlers to age seven, including those engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex with men. Under these circumstances, a downward departure would not have been appropriate given “the number and nature of the images possessed by the defendant” … . People v Carman, 2021 NY Slip Op 02834, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PETITIONER-SEX-OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 civil commitment of petitioner as a dangerous sex offender, determined Supreme Court should not have denied petitioner’s request to represent himself:

We have recognized that a respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding “can effectively waive his or her statutory right to counsel” once the court “conducts a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent” … . In the instant case, respondent made a timely and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, the court conducted the requisite searching inquiry, and respondent repeatedly evinced an understanding of each of the court’s warnings to him regarding the possible consequences of proceeding pro se … . The court, however, denied the request because it believed that respondent “[had] a good chance of prevailing” but did not believe that respondent “[had] a chance . . . of prevailing if [the court] let [respondent] go pro se.”

On the record before us, we conclude that the court’s sole rationale for denying the request was its belief that respondent lacked legal training and an understanding of the law, but that is not an appropriate basis on which to deny a request to proceed pro se … . “[M]ere ignorance of the law cannot vitiate an effective waiver of counsel as long as the defendant was cognizant of the dangers of waiving counsel at the time it was made” … . Matter of State of New York v Michael M., 2021 NY Slip Op 02636, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THE DECEIT OCCURRED DURING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-attorney’s motion to dismiss the Judiciary Law 487 cause of action should have been granted because the deceit or fraud was not alleged to have occurred during a judicial proceeding. Plaintiff alleged the misrepresentation concerned a guaranty for payment on a note related to the sale of plaintiff’s business:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action. “[A] Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action requires that the alleged deceit occurred during a judicial proceeding in which the plaintiff was a party” … . Here, the complaint failed to allege that the deceit occurred during a judicial proceeding or before any court … . Pszeniczny v Horn, 2021 NY Slip Op 02553, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINED HIS STRATEGIES BEHIND WAIVING THE HUNTLEY HEARING AND REFRAINING FROM CONSULTING AND PRESENTING EXPERTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE RAPE TRIAL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that defense counsel, at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, adequately explained the strategic reasons for waiving the Huntley hearing and not consulting experts in this first degree rape case. Defendant was charged with having sex with a woman who was incapable of consent due to intoxication. Defendant was not read his Miranda rights until well into the police interrogation:

In support of his belief that the admission of the statements would be beneficial, counsel explained that defendant had maintained throughout the interview that the victim was an active and willing participant in the sexual encounter and that, if the statements were suppressed, the jury would only hear about the changes that defendant had made to his story when, as expected, he testified at trial and was cross-examined about them … . In contrast, if the entire interview were put into evidence with appropriate redactions, the defense would benefit from having the jury repeatedly hear defendant’s exculpatory version of events and be assured that almost all of his account had remained consistent over time. Counsel further believed that any damage caused by the jury seeing defendant walk back aspects of his story could be ameliorated, reasoning that jurors could be persuaded to sympathize with a “desperate” and “confused” defendant who wavered on a few points after prolonged, increasingly hostile questioning, but remained “adamant that everything that had just happened was consensual and [that the victim] was awake for it.” …

… [A]lthough defendant complains that counsel failed to consult with experts or present their testimony to rebut proof related to the victim’s sexual assault examination, her degree of intoxication and the presence of defendant’s genetic material in her anus, the hearing evidence reflected that counsel “had a strategic reason for [that] failure” … . … A finding that the victim was alert and willing would have … resulted in defendant’s acquittal on all charges, and counsel made the tactical decision to focus on that issue to the exclusion of murkier battles over whether the alleged anal sexual conduct had occurred or whether some of the conclusions drawn by the People’s experts were open to question. Counsel explained that he chose that course because of emotionally charged testimony from the victim, the sexual assault nurse examiner and others, all of whom he realized posed a real danger of inflaming the sympathies of the jury against defendant. As such, counsel viewed it as essential to present a narrowly tailored defense that kept the jury “singl[ed] in on” concrete facts pointing to the victim as an active participant in the sexual encounter. People v Sposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 02441, Third Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing judge should have recused himself because his law clerk, a former assistant DA, was not screened from the case:

… [A]fter the verdict was rendered, but prior to sentencing, the trial justice hired as his law clerk a former Queens County Assistant District Attorney who had been involved in the investigation and the early stages of the defendant’s prosecution. “‘[A] law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function'” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, due process principles did not require recusal, as there was no indication that the trial justice had a direct, personal, substantial, or pecuniary interest in the case … . However, since the law clerk was not screened from working on this case and, according to the trial justice, actually discussed the sentencing of the defendant with the justice, the justice should have recused himself “‘in a special effort to maintain the appearance of impartiality'” … . People v Hymes, 2021 NY Slip Op 02412, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

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