You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

EXCLUDING A SPECTATOR FROM THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS SLEEPING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR IS NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s excluding a spectator from defendant’s trial violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The spectator, apparently a friend of the defendant, had been asleep during the trial. He was excluded solely on that ground:

While trial courts have “inherent discretionary power to exclude members of the public from the courtroom” … , that discretion “must be exercised only when unusual circumstances necessitate it” … . “In sum, ‘an affirmative act by the trial court excluding persons from the courtroom’ without lawful justification constitutes a violation of the defendant’s right to a public trial” … . “A violation of the right to an open trial is not subject to harmless error analysis and a per se rule of reversal irrespective of prejudice is the only realistic means to implement this important constitutional guarantee” … .

Here, after the first day of testimony had concluded and jurors had been dismissed for the day, the Supreme Court excluded a spectator from the courtroom for sleeping, which the court noted was “disrespectful” and “distracting to the jurors.” The court told the spectator … he was “excluded from this courtroom for the rest of this trial” and was “not to return” to the courtroom. * * *

The record demonstrates that the Supreme Court did not sufficiently consider whether less drastic measures could have addressed the spectator’s behavior, such as warning the spectator or requesting that the spectator alter his demeanor in the courtroom … . The court’s statement the next day that the spectator was no longer excluded from the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court’s error. People v White, 2025 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: A judge has to have a good reason for excluding a spectator from a trial. The fact that the spectator had slept during the trial was not enough. Exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a public trial.

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, WHICH ALLOWED REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE AFTER A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY WAS REJECTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award in this employment-discipline case should not have been vacated. The court rejected the argument that the award, which penalized the employee (Williams) for misbehavior as a corrections officer but allowed her reinstatement, violated public policy. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here. But it illustrates just how difficult it is to vacate an arbitrator’s award on public-policy grounds:

“A court may vacate an arbitrator’s award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)” … . Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that “violates a strong public policy” … . An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds “where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State” … . As there is no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Williams’ guilt and penalty under the CBA, [collective bargaining agreement] our inquiry focuses on whether “the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns” … . Matter of Spence (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2025 NY Slip Op 04135, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for vacating an arbitrator’s award on public policy grounds.

 

, ,

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 7003(1), which requires a judge to forfeit $1000 when a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief is improperly denied, is unconstitutional. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine:

… [W]hile CPLR 7003(c) is not a direct diminution of judicial compensation, the language of that provision explicitly “targets judges for disadvantageous treatment,” as it provides that a $1,000 forfeiture be paid personally by a judge who does not issue a writ of habeas corpus where one should have been issued … . CPLR 7003(c) is, thus, an indirect diminution of the salary of judges within the meaning of the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that “[b]y its nature, CPLR 7003(c) singles out judges for financially adverse treatment because of their exercise of their judicial functions and does so in a manner that discriminates based on how they decide an application for a writ. To impose a forfeiture on a judge based on which way they decide an application undermines the core objective of the [C]ompensation [C]lause of protecting judicial independence.” * * *

By imposing a penalty on a judge who refuses a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus [*14]relief where such relief should have been issued, the Legislature, through CPLR 7003(c), is interfering with judicial functions by incentivizing one specific outcome, namely, issuance of the writ, because a judge only faces a penalty if he or she refuses to issue a writ. Such influence is impermissible, as “‘the mere existence of the power to interfere with or to influence the exercise of judicial functions contravenes the fundamental principles of separation of powers embodied in our State constitution and cannot be sustained'” … . Poltorak v Clarke, 2025 NY Slip Op 04496, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: CPLR 7003(1) requires a judge to forfeit $1000 for an improper denial of habeas corpus relief. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine.

 

, , , , ,

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.

 

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