You are here: / Attorneys
,

JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined County Court should have inquired into defendant’s request for new counsel after learning defendant had filed a grievance against his attorney:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to substitute his second assigned attorney and, at a minimum, should have conducted a more detailed inquiry with respect to his complaints about counsel’s performance.

” [A]lthough there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance’ ” … . Here, we agree with defendant that the court should have “made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel’s statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him,” in order to determine whether defense counsel was properly able to continue to represent defendant … . We thus conclude that the court thereby violated defendant’s right to counsel and that defendant is entitled to a new trial … , prior to which he should be given the opportunity to retain counsel or be assigned new counsel if appropriate. People v Hardy, 2018 NY Slip Op 01837, Fourth Dept 3-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEAS, MATTER REMITTED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was not warned of the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas. The matter was remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the pleas:

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court apprised the defendant of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … , and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation… . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his pleas of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Cole, 2018 NY Slip Op 01612, Second Dept 3-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEAS, MATTER REMITTED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEAS (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEAS, MATTER REMITTED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEAS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery first degree charge (no evidence of threat with a dangerous instrument) and the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into defense counsel’s request to withdraw:

Indisputably, the “gun” was plastic and did not work, and there was no evidence that it could potentially harm someone… . Similarly, while there was testimony that one of the men entering the motel room was holding the tire checker, there was no evidence that any individual brandished the tire checker in a threatening manner… . … [T]here is no question that one of the individuals possessed a dangerous instrument. What was missing was any evidence that there was any verbal threat of immediate use of the instrument or that it was “employ[ed]” in any way … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. County Court’s determination focused on the inconveniences that would result if counsel were substituted and the trial were delayed one month, as well as defendant’s propensity to complain. But it was trial counsel, not defendant, complaining that the relationship had broken down, and the request was not made on the eve of trial. While we are not suggesting that a request made by counsel warrants heightened inquiry, “a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” may constitute good cause for substitution… , and there was no inquiry here to assess the gravity of counsel’s concerns in this regard. The motion raised specific examples to support trial counsel’s claim that there was “an irretrievable breakdown” in the relationship with defendant. As such, the court should have first questioned both defendant and trial counsel about “the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” prior to denying the motion … . Absent such a “minimal inquiry,” we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction … . People v Matthews, 2018 NY Slip Op 01499, Second Dept 3-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ATTORNEYS, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ROBBERY (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ROBBERY, DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (ROBBERY, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/WITHDRAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statement and a buccal swab should have granted but the error was harmless. The dissent argued the error was not harmless. The court noted that a violation of the right to counsel can be raised on appeal even when the error was not preserved:

… [A] recording of the defendant’s custodial statement to the police, which was entered into evidence at the hearing, shows that during the interview the defendant twice stated, “I think I need a lawyer.” The defendant’s statements constituted an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, and after those statements, the police continued their questioning of the defendant and took no steps to comply with the defendant’s unequivocal request for counsel. Therefore, the remainder of the defendant’s statement after that point, as well as the buccal swab that he provided to the police after that point, should have been suppressed from evidence … . People v Bethea, 2018 NY Slip Op 01474, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION,  DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/BUCCAL SWAB (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s desire to represent himself in this custody proceeding should have been honored by the court. Family Court had ordered that father be allowed only supervised visitation until he retained counsel:

The father had a statutory right to counsel in these Family Court proceedings… . However, he also had the right to waive counsel and proceed pro se, provided he waived his right to counsel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily… . “Where a respondent has made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary choice to represent himself or herself, forcing a lawyer upon [him or her] is contrary to his [or her] basic right to defend himself [or herself]'” … .

Where a party unequivocally and timely asserts the right to self-representation, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . “While there is no rigid formula to the court’s inquiry, there must be a showing that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . The Court of Appeals has stated that the better practice is to ask the party about his or her age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures, and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, and voluntary waiver … .

Here, the father unequivocally and timely asserted his right to represent himself in the Family Court proceedings. The Family Court engaged in a searching inquiry of the father, which revealed that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and that it was his desire and personal choice to proceed pro se. The court properly warned him of the perils of self-representation, which he acknowledged. The father is a tax attorney, and his relative ignorance of family law did not justify the court’s denial of his request, as mere ignorance of the law is insufficient to deprive one of the right to self-representation … . Matter of Aleman v Lansch, 2018 NY Slip Op 01303, Second Dept, 2-28-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/PRO SE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined County County should have assigned a new attorney after defense counsel took a position adverse to her client’s motion to withdraw his plea:

At sentencing, defense counsel appropriately advised County Court that, although she had counseled defendant regarding the potential consequences of withdrawing his guilty plea, and despite her legal advice to the contrary, defendant nevertheless wished to proceed with such a motion. Defendant thereafter set forth various reasons as to why he believed he was entitled to the requested relief. In response to County Court’s subsequent inquiries, however, defense counsel made comments that, in our view, could be construed as undermining the very arguments that defendant had raised in support of his motion. Accordingly, once defense counsel took a position that was adverse to defendant, County Court should have assigned a new attorney to represent him on his motion to withdraw his plea … . People v Oliver, 2018 NY Slip Op 01221, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty had he been told by his attorney that deportation was mandatory:

… [W]e agree with the defendant’s contention that the legal representation he received at the plea proceeding was deficient inasmuch as the plea minutes show that the defendant’s counsel, who was aware that the defendant was a noncitizen, advised him only that pleading guilty to a drug felony “may affect his [immigration] status” (emphasis added). Such advice was erroneous given that a felony drug conviction involving cocaine made the defendant’s deportation mandatory … , and where, as here, the deportation consequence is clear, counsel’s duty to give correct advice is equally clear … .

In order for the defendant to obtain vacatur of his plea of guilty based on a Padilla violation, he must also establish that ” there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial'” … . The Supreme Court, in its report, expressed the view that the evidence in the record, as supplemented by the defendant’s testimony at the hearing conducted upon remittal, evinced a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea, and would have insisted instead on going to trial. We agree, and discern no reason to disturb the credibility determinations made by the court … . People v Loaiza, 2018 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees in this accountant malpractice action constituted a request for indemnification which was prohibited by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged they hired defendant-accountants to make sure plaintiffs were in compliance with overtime compensation and wage notice requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiffs were subsequently sued on related claims and sought recover of the attorney’s fees expended to settle the suit. The Fourth Department noted that the breach of contract action was not the same as the accountant malpractice action, but that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty actions were duplicative of the breach of contract action:

​

It is well established that “there is no right of contribution or indemnity for employers found liable under the FLSA” … , and the FLSA preempts any conflicting provisions of state labor laws, including those of New York … . A party may not avoid this bar on indemnity by seeking indemnification damages through other legal theories … . In view of the foregoing, we agree with defendants that seeking attorneys’ fees associated with that underlying class action is a request for indemnity … . * * *

​

.. .[w]e reject defendants’ contention that the breach of contract cause of action is duplicative of the accounting malpractice cause of action. The breach of contract cause of action is based on allegations that defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs by failing to perform certain services, and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover all compensation paid to defendants for those unperformed services. That is separate and distinct from the allegations in the accounting malpractice cause of action, which seeks damages based on allegations that defendants did perform services pursuant to the contract but failed to comply with the accepted standards of care. Delphi Healthcare PLLC v Petrella Phillips LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 01012,  Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) (SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE (THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR AGREEING TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH SERVED TO DISTINGUISH COUNTS ALLEGING SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THIS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT CASE, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined defense counsel was not ineffective for agreeing to annotations on the verdict sheet which served to distinguish the aggravated harassment counts from one another, many of which involved similar behavior. County Court’s reversal of this City Court case on ineffective assistance grounds was reversed:

​

The trial court provided the jury with a four-page verdict sheet. To help the jurors distinguish between the many similar allegations covering more than three hundred different acts committed over twelve distinct time periods, the court annotated each count on the verdict sheet with a date or date range and a short description of the alleged criminal conduct. For example, the fourth aggravated harassment charge included the annotation “Between June 26, 2011 and July 6, 2011 (emailing approximately 15 times)” and the fourth criminal contempt charge read “On July 12, 2012 (occurrence in small claims court).” …

​

CPL 310.20 permits trial courts to annotate verdict sheets containing two or more counts charging offenses set forth in the same article of the law with “the dates, names of complainants, or specific statutory language . . . by which the counts may be distinguished” (CPL 310.20 [2]). Those annotations are intended to “enhance the ability of deliberating juries to distinguish between seemingly identical or substantially similar counts”. If the court believes different or further annotations would be instructive, it may “furnish an expanded or supplemental verdict sheet”… , although it may do so “only . . . with the consent of the parties” … . …

​

Both common sense and defense counsel’s summation demonstrate that trial counsel had a sound strategic reason for consenting to the annotations: they encouraged the jury to think about each count and the relevant evidence (restricted by date and type) independently, instead of concluding that Mr. O’Kane’s egregious behavior warranted a conviction on every seemingly identical count. People v O’Kane, 2018 NY Slip Op 00859, CtApp 2-8-18

​

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR AGREEING TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH SERVED TO DISTINGUISH COUNTS ALLEGING SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THIS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT CASE, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR AGREEING TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH SERVED TO DISTINGUISH COUNTS ALLEGING SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THIS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT CASE, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (CT APP))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR AGREEING TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH SERVED TO DISTINGUISH COUNTS ALLEGING SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THIS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT CASE, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (CT APP))

,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, based upon the People’s failure to provide exculpatory information and correct a witness’s testimony, required reversal and a new trial. A witness, Avitto, called by the People testified defendant made inculpatory statements (re: the murder charge) while they were in jail together. At trial the Avitto testified he received no benefit from the People in exchange for his testimony. However, after a hearing, it appeared there had been an informal agreement to provide Avitto with favorable treatment in return for his testimony. Avitto was facing a serious charge and needed to complete a drug program to qualify for a shorter sentence. Even though Avitto was not doing well in the drug program, and in fact had left the program, he was allowed to stay out of jail and continue to attempt to complete the program:

​

The evidence at issue here—Avitto’s immediate contact with the police … , after leaving the drug program, his subsequent court appearance with detectives and the prosecutor … , when he was released on his own recognizance, as well as his ability to remain out of custody despite poor progress in his drug treatment and numerous violations—was of such a nature that the jury could have found that, despite Avitto’s protestations to the contrary, “there was indeed a tacit understanding” between Avitto and the prosecution that he would receive or hoped to receive a benefit for his testimony … . This evidence was material in nature, and its nondisclosure prejudiced the defendant, as it constituted impeachment material and tended to show a motivation for Avitto to lie … .

Accordingly, the prosecutor was not only required to disclose this evidence to the defendant, but was further required to clarify “the record by disclosing all the details of what had actually transpired” between the District Attorney’s office and Avitto … . The prosecutor further had the obligation to correct any misleading or false testimony given by Avitto at trial regarding his contact with detectives and the prosecutor, and his progression in drug treatment … . These errors were further compounded when the prosecutor reiterated and emphasized Avitto’s misleading testimony during summation … .  People v Giuca, 2018 NY Slip Op 00846, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRADY MATERIAL, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, , PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

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