You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , , ,

THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have increased defendant’s SORA risk-level based upon information which was not included in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or raised by the People at the SORA hearing:

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine [their] risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [RAI]” … . It is therefore improper for a court to depart from the presumptive risk level based on a ground for departure that has never been raised (see id.). Here, because defendant’s employment was not presented as a basis for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new risk level determination and, if necessary, a new hearing in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights … . People v Lincoln, 2025 NY Slip Op 03930, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to notice of all the evidence which the court will rely for a SORA risk-level assessment such that the defendant has an opportunity to respond.

 

, , , ,

THE NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAWS REFORMING THE NYC FIGHTING HOMELESSNES AND EVICTION PREVENTION SUPPLEMENT ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined that the local laws passed by the City Council modifying the New York City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (FHEPS) were not preempted by the New York State Social Services Law. The opinion is comprehensive and too detailed to fairly summarize here:

[The] FHEPS reform laws were prompted by three conditions faced by the City: the rising number of evictions of residential tenants, a dramatic increase in the rate of homelessness, and an overburdened shelter system.  These laws were designed to broaden eligibility for City-funded rental assistance, and promote quantitatively and qualitatively greater assistance. Thus, the FHEPS reform laws increased the income eligibility threshold, eliminated a 90-day shelter residency requirement, eliminated recipient work requirements, prohibited the New York City Department of Social Services (City DSS) from deducting a utility allowance from the maximum rental allowance for a FHEPS voucher, and expanded the list of individuals eligible for rental assistance (see Local Law Nos. 99-102). * * *

Several individuals who hoped to avail themselves of the benefits of the FHEPS reform laws commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the Mayor’s refusal to implement those laws. The individuals initiated the proceeding as a putative class action, and bring the case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The City Council was granted leave to intervene in the proceeding, and sought an order directing the Mayor to implement the FHEPS reform laws or, alternatively, a declaration that those laws are valid. With respect to the principal relief sought, the City Council makes plain that it “seeks only that the Mayor be directed to take action to implement [the new local laws]. How the administration implements the [FHEPS] Reform Laws is within the administration’s discretion.”

The Mayor opposed the article 78 petition on the ground that the FHEPS reform laws are preempted by the State’s Social Services Law. Matter of Vincent v Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 04146, First Dept 5-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an analysis of the preemption doctrine in the context of NYC Local Laws and the NYS Social Services Law.

 

, ,

THE DETECTIVE DID NOT READ THE MIRANDA RIGHTS TO DEFENDANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE READ THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BEFORE HE WAIVED THEM; THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel before speaking with the detective. The detective never explained the Miranda rights verbally. Defendant was given a paper which explained the rights. The videotape of defendant’s interview showed that defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it:

As can be seen from the videotape, neither the detective nor defendant read all of the Miranda rights out loud and, while they did discuss Miranda in general, the focus of the oral interaction was about the waiver of the right to counsel and not the other rights described on the Miranda form. There is no indication that defendant actually read all of the warnings or comprehended them. Indeed, the videotape establishes that defendant looked at the form for less than five seconds before he reached for the pen to sign it. Based on our review of the video, we conclude that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for defendant to have read to himself all of the Miranda warnings during the five seconds the piece of paper was in front of him before he signed. More to the point, the People failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was adequately apprised of his relevant constitutional rights before waiving them.

Although “[t]here is no rule, statutory or otherwise, requiring that Miranda warnings be read to a suspect” … , there is no evidence in this case that defendant was actually “administered” such rights … or that such rights were “verbally outline[d]” to him … . People v Marsh, 2025 NY Slip Op 03874, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: There is no requirement that the police read the Miranda rights to a suspect out loud. But the People have the burden of proving the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights before defendant was interviewed. Here the videotape of the interview demonstrated the detective did not explain the rights verbally. Rather, the detective provided defendant with a paper explaining the rights. The videotape demonstrated defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it. The People therefore failed to prove a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights and suppression was warranted.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE, COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO UNLOCK THE CELL PHONE WITH HIS FINGERPRINT AMOUNTED TO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE OWNED, CONTROLLED AND HAD ACCESS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE, A VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ogden, determined compelling defendant to unlock his cell phone with his finger (the cell phone was programmed to recognize defendant’s fingerprint) violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The police were acting pursuant to a child-pornography search warrant when defendant was compelled to unlock the phone. The cell phone contained child pornography. Defendant pled guilty. The issue on appeal was whether defendant’s motion to suppress the images on the phone should have been granted:

… [T]he People do not dispute that the opening of the cell phone was compelled and incriminating. We are thus tasked with determining whether defendant’s compelled opening of his cell phone, upon the warrant’s execution, had a testimonial aspect sufficient to trigger Fifth Amendment protection.

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s “act of unlocking the phone represented the thoughts ‘I know how to open the phone,’ ‘I have control over and access to this phone,’ and ‘the print of this specific finger is the password to this phone’ ” … . The biometric data defendant provided “directly announce[d] [defendant’s] access to and control over the phone, as well as his mental knowledge of how to unlock the device” … . The act of production cases also support the conclusion that, upon execution of the warrant, defendant’s compelled unlocking of his phone through biometric data was testimonial. We conclude that “in response to the command to unlock the phone, [defendant] opened it, [and] that act disclosed his control over the phone [and] his knowledge of how to access it” … . At a minimum, the authentication through biometric data implicitly communicated that the contents contained therein were in defendant’s possession or control … .

… [T]he way in which the warrant was executed effectively required defendant to answer “a series of questions about ownership or control over the phone, including how it could be opened and by whom” … .

… “Because the compelled opening of the cellphone [during the execution of the search warrant] was testimonial, both the message and any evidence obtained from that communication must be suppressed” … . People v Manganiello, 2025 NY Slip Op 03873, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: At least where there is a question whether defendant owns and controls a cell phone which contains child pornography, compelling defendant to unlock the phone with his fingerprint is tantamount to defendant’s testimony that defendant owns, controls and has access to the contents of the phone—constituting a violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

, , , ,

A POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIMS BUT THE VICTIMS DID NOT TESTIFY; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL MENTIONED THE LACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE ARGUMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED; THEREFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional “confrontation” issue first raised on appeal had not been preserved. A police officer testified about the identities and physical descriptions of the assailants provided by one of the victims while she was being treated in an ambulance. The victims were expected to testify but never did:

Defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case did not invoke the Confrontation Clause and the colloquy that took place between defense counsel and the court makes clear that the motion to dismiss was neither intended nor understood to raise a constitutional issue.  Moreover, counsel did not invoke or rely on any caselaw dealing with constitutional protections. Instead, counsel made evidentiary arguments regarding the persuasive quality of the prosecution’s proof and, when asked by the court, confirmed that the motion was limited to the sufficiency of the evidence. Further, the timing of defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case—which defense counsel specifically referred to as “a trial order of dismissal” …—suggests that defendant’s aim was not to challenge testimony of the victim’s statements as violative of his right to confrontation, but simply as failing to meet the evidentiary bar for a prima facie case … . Additionally, counsel repeatedly told the court that his motion was “focus[ed]” on the third-degree robbery charge, demonstrating that the argument was a legal insufficiency one, rather than a Confrontation Clause challenge, which would necessarily apply to all charges with equal force. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the mere reference to a lack of cross-examination was insufficient to alert the court that defendant was making a constitutional argument … . People v Bacon, 2025 NY Slip Op 03692, CtApp 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the violation of defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was a viable issue because statements made by two witness were described by a police officer but the witnesses did not testify. Although defense counsel mentioned the inability to cross-examine the witnesses in a “sufficiency-of-evidence” argument before the trial court, the constitutional confrontation argument was not specifically raised. The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional issue was not preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; MONTHS LATER THE PEOPLE INDICTED THE DEFENDANT ON A MURDER CHARGE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S CPL 40.40 MOTION TO DISMISS THE MURDER INDICTMENT; THERE WAS A STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the murder indictment (CPL 40.40(2)), determined that the criminal possession of a weapon charges to which defendant pled guilty were not a barrier to a subsequent murder charge based on the same underlying facts. There was a comprehensive dissent:

… [O]n or about November 20, 2021, the 90-year-old victim was shot and killed in her home. When police officers arrived at the scene, defendant, the victim’s granddaughter, was found in the house and appeared to be in distress. Defendant gave the officers conflicting accounts of what had happened to her grandmother but consistently stated that there were guns in the house that defendant had been playing with. A pistol and a revolver were recovered from the home. The People presented evidence to a grand jury relating to the two firearms. The evidence included witness testimony from various police officers about the crime scene, including that the victim appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and about statements made to them by defendant. Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b [1]), and she pleaded guilty to both counts. * * *

“CPL 40.40 prohibits a separate prosecution of joinable offenses that arise out of the same transaction and involve different and distinct elements under circumstances wherein no violation of the double jeopardy principle can validly be maintained but the equities nevertheless seem to preclude separate prosecutions” … . Under CPL 40.40 (1), “[w]here two or more offenses are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction, . . . such person may not, under circumstances prescribed in this section, be separately prosecuted for such offenses.” A “criminal transaction” is defined as “conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). “When (a) one of two or more joinable offenses [that are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction] is charged in an accusatory instrument, and (b) another is not charged therein, or in any other accusatory instrument filed in the same court, despite possession by the [P]eople of evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction of the defendant for such uncharged offense, and (c) either a trial of the existing accusatory instrument is commenced or the action thereon is disposed of by a plea of guilty, any subsequent prosecution for the uncharged offense is thereby barred” (CPL 40.40 [2] …). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the conduct related to possession of the firearms and that related to the murder involved separate and distinct criminal acts that were not part of the same criminal transaction … . Thus, the murder count was properly charged on a separate accusatory instrument and the People did not violate CPL 40.40.

From the dissent:

… [P]rosecution of the murder charge is barred by CPL 40.40 (2) because it is joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (a) with the criminal possession of a firearm offenses charged in the prior indictment, and the People possessed legally sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction against defendant when she pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses. Where, as here, “the evidence against a person is in the prosecutor’s hands, [they] may not—as a player in a game of chance—deal out indictments one at a time” … . People v Harris, 2025 NY Slip Op 03419, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and was subsequently indicted for murder based on the same facts. The majority upheld the denial of the CPL 40.40(2) motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding the possession-of-a-weapon and murder charges were not part of the same criminal transaction. There was a strong dissent.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WAS FACING NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the judge’s providing erroneous information about the maximum sentence defendant was facing did not need to be preserved for appeal and rendered the guilty plea involuntary:

… County Court advised [defendant] that, if he elected to proceed to trial and was convicted of all offenses as a second felony drug offender, he faced a sentencing exposure of 36 years in prison rather than the correct, capped term of 30 years … . … [A]s the Court of Appeals recently made clear, where “the court provides the defendant with erroneous information concerning their maximum sentencing exposure that is contrary to the undisputed text of the Penal Law, fails to correct its error on the record, and the defendant has no apparent reason to question the accuracy of that information, the defendant need not preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of the guilty plea on that ground” … . * * *

Although defendant here was no stranger to the criminal justice system and received a reasonable sentencing commitment from County Court, the plea colloquy itself reflects that defendant believed that he had been overcharged and questioned whether he would be convicted if he went to trial. Defendant made clear during the plea colloquy, in fact, that he was only pleading guilty to the indictment because he would rather[*3]”get the high/low of 16/14″ than go to trial and risk “more time in state prison.” Even then, defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty until the moment he entered his formal plea, asking County Court immediately before he did so to repeat the potential sentencing exposure he faced if he did not “want to go through all of this and [went] to trial.” … .People v Shaw, 2025 NY Slip Op 03358, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point” Here the judge told defendant he was facing 36 years in prison when the actual maximum was 30. That error need not be preserved for appeal and, based on defendant’s remarks and questions at sentencing, was deemed to have rendered defendant’s guilty plea involuntary.

 

, ,

AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT BASED UPON ANOTHER STUDENT’S (THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL’S) ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED; THE UNIVERSITY’S TITLE IX GRIEVANCE POLICY PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IS ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, ANY DETERMINATION BY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE BASED UPON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulled the university’s determination petitioner had violated the university’s “Community Rights and Responsibilities” by sexually assaulting the reporting individual. Petitioner did not deny kissing an touching the reporting individual, but contended all the interactions were consensual. The reporting individual did not testify at the hearing. The university’s Title IX grievance policy provides that, when the reporting individual does not testify and is not subject to cross-examination, the determination cannot be based upon any statement attributed to the reporting individual. Here statements by the reporting individual were the basis for the university’s determination:

Petitioner contends that he was denied due process because he was not afforded the opportunity to question the reporting individual, who did not testify at the hearing or otherwise submit to cross-examination. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree and conclude that annulment is required. “In general, there is a limited right to cross-examine an adverse witness in an administrative proceeding, and the right to cross-examine witnesses generally has not been considered an essential requirement of due process in school disciplinary proceedings” … . Nevertheless, “[i]t is well established that once having adopted rules or guidelines establishing the procedures to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion of a student, colleges or universities — both public and private — must substantially comply with those rules and guidelines” … . Matter of Bibler v State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 2025 NY Slip Op 03373, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: In a university disciplinary proceeding stemming from an allegation of sexual assault, the right to cross-examine the accuser is not considered an essential requirement of due process. However, the university is required to abide by its own rules. Here the rules stated that, where the accuser is absent from the hearing and is not cross-examined, the university’s determination cannot be based upon statements made by the accuser. The university’s failure to comply with that rule required that the determination be annulled.

 

A NYC LOCAL LAW REQUIRING REDUCTIONS IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LARGE BUILDINGS IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE STATE’S CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the NYC Local Law requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings was not preempted the the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act:

The State Constitution grants local governments the power to enact “local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of th[e] constitution or any general law” relating to certain specified subjects, including the “safety, health and well-being of [the locality’s] persons or property” (NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii] [10]; see also Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1] [ii] [a] [12]). State law can preempt local law in one of two ways: either through conflict preemption, which occurs when the local and State laws directly conflict, or field preemption, which occurs “when a local government legislates in a field for which the State Legislature has assumed full regulatory responsibility” … . Plaintiffs have not argued conflict preemption; their sole claim before us is that the State has preempted the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. * * *

Rather than demonstrating an intent to preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Climate Act recognizes that local government plays an important role in this area. The Act does not expressly prohibit local regulation of emissions. To the contrary, the Act’s legislative findings evince a sense of urgency concerning the implementation of mitigation measures in general and further express the legislature’s intent to “encourage other jurisdictions to implement complementary greenhouse gas reduction strategies” … . The Act also directs the Climate Action Council to identify and consider measures taken by other jurisdictions, including localities, when developing the Scoping Plan … . The absence of any statement that local efforts would be superseded is particularly significant here given that Local Law No. 97 was enacted before the Climate Act, as well as the recognized and longstanding involvement of localities in regulating matters of environmental concern affecting the health and safety of the community, such as air pollution … . Further reflecting the Act’s embrace of complementary local action, as noted above, it contains a savings clause stating that it does not relieve any entity from, as relevant here, compliance with other applicable local laws and regulations … . Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc. v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03101, CtApp 5-22-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the criteria for “field preemption,” i.e., the state’s intention to regulate an area exclusively to the exclusion of any local laws or regulations. Here a NYC Local Law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from buildings was not preempted by the state’s Climate Act.

 

, , ,

HERE DEFENDANT MADE A TIMELY REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion (three judges), reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that the judge’s failure to conduct an inquiry before denying defendant’s request to represent himself violated his constitutional right to self-representation:

A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed pro se (see US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6; see also CPL 170.10 [6], 180.10 [5], 210.15 [5] [codifying a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation]). Defendant invoked that right when he informed Supreme Court that he “would like to represent [him]self” at his upcoming trial. People v McIntyre (36 NY2d 10 [1974]) and its progeny required that the court make a searching inquiry into defendant’s unequivocal and timely request to proceed pro se, to determine whether that request was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Contrary to that rule, the court immediately denied defendant’s request without inquiry, and it expressly refused to consider any further request until the day of trial. The court’s failure to inquire into defendant’s request violated his constitutional right to self-representation. Therefore, we reverse and grant defendant a new trial.

On June 4, 2018, the parties appeared for trial. * * * This colloquy followed:

THE DEFENDANT: I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: I can’t hear you.
THE DEFENDANT: Cocounsel. I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: Cocounsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: What is that?
THE DEFENDANT: Meaning I’m going to represent myself in this case.
THE COURT: You mean pro se.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I will be going pro se at trial. I will be representing myself acting as my own.
THE COURT: You made no application before me.
THE DEFENDANT: I never said I wanted a trial by jurors. I never told this individual that I wanted a trial by jurors.
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Lewis, I’m assuming now you’re trying to play games with this court. . . . I’ll continue with this trial. If you want to speak to [defense counsel] about certain issues, I’ll hear [defense counsel] tomorrow morning.”

The following morning, the court invited defendant to raise any issues before proceeding with jury selection. Defendant asserted again that he did not want defense counsel to represent him, alleging that counsel was ineffective, had a conflict of interest, and was not working on his behalf. The court only responded, “[o]kay. Nicely done,” and continued the proceeding. People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03011, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation. A judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” upon a timely request.​

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy