You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING AT MORE THAN TWICE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN HE COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER CAR, KILLING THE DRIVER; USUALLY EXCESSIVE SPEED ALONE WILL NOT SUPPORT A CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CHARGE; HERE, HOWEVER, THE EXCESSIVE SPEED IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the indictment, over a dissent, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient for criminally negligent homicide. The defendant was driving at twice the speed limit in a residential neighborhood when he collided with another vehicle at an intersection, killing the driver. Generally driving in excess of the speed limit, alone, will not support a criminally negligent homicide charge. However, here, the excessive speed, in combination with other factors, was deemed sufficient:

[T]he culpable risk-creating conduct necessary to support a finding of recklessness or criminal negligence generally requires ‘some additional affirmative act’ aside from ‘driving faster than the posted speed limit'” … , which transforms speeding into dangerous speeding, by engaging in some other “risk-creating” behavior such as disregarding traffic signals … . However, there is no per se rule that speeding alone is insufficient … . There are circumstances where excessive speed “absent proof of any other contributing factors” is sufficient … . The extent of the violation of the posted speed limit and the surrounding circumstances must be considered … .

“[I]n order to sustain a conviction for criminally negligent homicide in a case in which the principal item of evidence consists of proof of the defendant’s use of excessive speed, [the law does not require that] the prosecution must always prove some other traffic law violation unrelated to the defendant’s rate of speed. While it may be accurate to say that an infraction of the posted speed limit does not ipso facto establish criminal negligence, it would not be accurate to say that a trier of fact may never conclude that in light of the time, the place, the weather conditions, and in light of any number of other factors which might be established at the trial, the defendant’s use of excessive speed was criminally negligent” … .

Here, … [t]he evidence, if accepted as true, demonstrated that the defendant disregarded road conditions, i.e., the fact that he was traveling in a residential neighborhood with a playground on the corner of the intersection, when he decided to drive his vehicle through the intersection at well above twice the posted speed limit … . The evidence further indicated that he was showing off to his friend how the vehicle “drives,” which, considering the fact that he accelerated the vehicle’s speed while allegedly doing so, indicated that he was showing off how the vehicle operated at a high speed. The evidence further indicated that he ignored a traffic control sign directing motorists to exercise additional caution … . People v Lee, 2026 NY Slip Op 05038, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Here in the fatal-vehicle-accident case, defendant’s excessive speed, in combination with the nature of the neighborhood and other factors, supported the criminally negligent homicide charge.

 

,

THE FAMILY COURT ACT ALLOWS COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR SIX MONTHS FOR EACH VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION; HERE THE 42-MONTH COMMITMENT WAS AFFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined father was properly committed to jail for 42 months for 10 violations of orders of protection: Father argued the commitment could not be more than 30 days per violation:

After a hearing on both violation petitions … the Family Court found that the father willfully violated the temporary orders of protection … on 10 separate occasions. In an order of commitment … , the court, inter alia, committed the father to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction for a period of 42 months. The court rejected the father’s argument that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751, the court only had the authority to sentence him to 30 days in jail for each willful violation. The court determined that it had the authority to impose 10 consecutive six-month terms of incarceration based on its finding that the father committed 10 separate willful violations, which would amount to a maximum permissible sentence of 60 months in jail, and imposed the 42-month term of incarceration. The father appeals, asserting that the maximum permissible sentence was a total of 300 days in jail. * * *

Sections 846-a and 1072 of the Family Court Act provide a “specific punishment or other remedy” for a willful violation of an order of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 156). Accordingly, Judiciary Law § 751 does not apply, and the Family Court was authorized to commit the father to jail for a period of 42 months upon the court’s finding that, on 10 separate occasions, the father violated temporary orders of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act … . Matter of Austin C. (Rasaan K.C.), 2026 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 8-12-26

 

,

THIS MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT’S YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; THE RULING ON REMAND DEMONSTRATED THE JUDGE WAS NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR WITH DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY AND WAS IN FACT MISTAKEN ABOUT IT; MATTER REMANDED AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s ruling on remand to consider defendant’s youthful offender (YO) status, determined the judge was confused about defendant’s criminal history and in fact was mistaken about it  The case was remanded again:

In making a YO treatment determination, sentencing courts may consider “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . While courts are not required to place their reasons for denying YO treatment on the record … , at minimum, YO consideration requires the court to have familiarity with the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it (see CPL 720.20[1][a]).

Here, the sentencing court tracked the statutory language in denying defendant YO treatment. However, it is unclear whether the court was cognizant of the relevant facts and circumstances of defendant’s case to appropriately consider YO treatment, much less the Cruickshank factors (105 AD2d at 334).

At the very least, this record calls into question whether defendant was appropriately considered for YO treatment. The sentencing court’s confusion exposes that it was so unaware of the facts of the underlying offense that we cannot be sure it considered the mitigating factors specific to this defendant that might warrant YO treatment, i.e. that the instant offense is defendant’s first conviction, signaling that he is not a hardened criminal; defendant’s expressed remorse, despite acting in self-defense; the overt steps he has taken to lead a law-abiding life; or the lack of serious injuries to the victim. People v Marcus T., 2026 NY Slip Op 04913, First Dept 8-6-26

Practice Point: Courts need not place the reasons for denial of YO status on the record. But the court must be aware of the relevant facts and circumstance of the case. Here the judge demonstrated he did not know the defendant’s criminal history, requiring reversal.

 

, ,

A SORA COURT JUDGE HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO, SUA SPONTE, REOPEN A SORA HEARING TO CORRECT AN ERROR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, joining the First and Fourth Departments, determined a judge has the authority to, sua sponte, reopen a SORA hearing to correct a mistake:

​Given the Supreme Court’s error, and considering the inherent power of a court to reconsider its own intermediate determinations, together with the overriding purposes and objectives of SORA, we find no wrong in the Supreme Court’s sua sponte correction of its initial failure to assess points under risk factors 3 and 5. There is no benefit to a defendant, the People, or the public in prohibiting a SORA court tasked with determining an offender’s presumptive risk level from, sua sponte, correcting its own erroneous determination … . People v Allen, 2026 NY Slip Op 04880, Second Dept 8-5-26

 

, ,

A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF DAYS DEVOTED TO MOTION PRACTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S 30.30 SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial (CPL 30.30) motion should have been denied because considerable time-periods should not have been charged to the People:

The court should have denied defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment. The court should not have charged the People for the 98-day period during which codefendant delayed serving a copy of his omnibus motion on the People. This time is excludable as time attributed to “pretrial motions,” including “the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” (CPL 30.30[4][a] …).

The court likewise should have excluded the 42-day period between the date of its decision on codefendant’s omnibus motion and the date on which the matter was adjourned for the People to file their certificate of compliance (COC) … . The People were entitled to “reasonable time to prepare for hearings and trial after the court’s rulings on [the co]defendant’s omnibus motion” … . People v Page, 2026 NY Slip Op 04823, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: Here days related to defense motion practice and preparation for hearings precipitated by rulings on defense motions should not have been charged to the People in a “speedy trial” analysis.

 

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE ARRESTING OFFICER TESTIFIED HIS PARTNER TOLD HIM THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AFTER HIS PARTNER SPOKE TO THE DRIVER; THE DEFENSE CHALLENGED THE INFORMATION IMPARTED BY THE DRIVER TO THE PARTNER UNDER THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE; BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE PARTNER HAD THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF SUSPICION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the People did not present evidence at the suppression hearing justifying handcuffing the defendant after a “tinted windows” traffic stop. The officer who testified at the hearing said his partner told him there was probable cause but he was not aware of what the driver told his partner. Because the defense challenged the information under the fellow officer rule, the People were required to demonstrate the officer who spoke with the driver had the requisite level of suspicion, but no evidence on that issue was presented:

We agree with defendant that, under these circumstances, by placing him in handcuffs after directing him to exit the vehicle, the troopers transformed the traffic stop into, at minimum, a “forcible stop and detention” … , which “must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct . . . ; a need to transport the defendant for a showup procedure . . . ; a fear that the suspect may interfere with the execution of a search warrant . . . ; or a concern for officer safety” … .

Although … the Trooper testified that he observed an “orange pill bottle with no markings on it in the center console of the vehicle,” that alone is insufficient to justify the forcible stop and detention … . The Trooper conceded that he could not see inside the bottle and did not know what was inside. He also did not observe any other indicia of criminality and did not see defendant acting in a suspicious manner. Although a conversation took place between the Trooper and his partner, defendant challenged that information under the fellow officer rule. The People were thus required to establish at the hearing that the partner, who imparted information to the Trooper, in fact possessed the requisite level of suspicion to act … . Here, however, the Trooper’s partner did not testify, and the Trooper testified that his partner did not relay the substance of the conversation with the driver to him. We are therefore unable to infer that the Trooper received information sufficient to justify his subsequent actions … . People v Purrier, 2026 NY Slip Op 04681, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: This case presents another example of a defense challenge to information passed from one police officer to another in the context of a probable-cause determination at a suppression hearing. The officer who testified at the hearing relied on information from his partner who told him there was probable cause to arrest after the partner spoke with the driver.  Because of the challenge under the fellow officer rule, the People were required to demonstrate the partner had the requisite level of suspicion after speaking with the driver, but the People presented no testimony on that issue.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE RELIABILITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH WAS RELAYED TO THE POLICE BY A CIVILIAN PROPERTY OWNER; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTIFICATION WAS BASED UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER’S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AS OPPOSED TO SPECULATION; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the People did not establish the legality of the defendant’s arrest, granted suppression and dismissed the indictment. The defendant specifically challenged the reliability of the identification of the defendant by a civilian property owner. The People failed to demonstrate the civilian’s identification was based upon personal knowledge as opposed to speculation:

The first officer testified that the civilian property owner had identified defendant in the video as the shooter and that she had reported having interacted with him more than 100 times.

We conclude that the civilian’s basis of knowledge was not established at the hearing. “The ‘basis-of-knowledge’ prong of the test may be satisfied upon a showing that the information furnished is so detailed as to make it clear that it must have been based upon personal knowledge” … . “The basis of knowledge component . . . requires that the information provided by the informant be corroborated orthrough details sufficient in number and suggestive of, or directly related to, the criminal activity informed about” … . Although the first officer testified that the civilian property owner had previously had more than 100 interactions with defendant, the record reflects that the level of detail needed to enable the court to determine whether her identification of defendant was “more than mere speculation” is lacking … . Notably, the People never offered the supporting deposition or the video of the underlying incident at the suppression hearing, and the hearing testimony failed to provide the requisite evidence of the civilian’s “own description of underlying circumstances personally observed” … . Although police observations can provide the corroborating details required to allow a court to properly infer a basis of knowledge, no such details were offered at the hearing … . As an example, the first officer testified that he had observed defendant “half a dozen times or so” prior to defendant’s arrest, but that he could not identify defendant in the video “because the video was grainy.” As another example, the court asked the first officer, “Did [the third officer] relay to you that he had had any prior involvement with [defendant]?,” to which the first officer responded, “I did not ask him.” As a result of the lack of detail, the court was relegated to reliance upon the first officer’s conclusory statement—provided to him by the civilian property owner—that defendant was the shooter in the underlying incident—”in order to determine the reliability of the information claimed to have established probable cause” … . People v Asbury, 2026 NY Slip Op 04617, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Where the police rely on information provided to them by other officers, a computer database, civilians, etc,, for probable cause, if the defense specifically challenges the reliability of the source of the information the People must demonstrate its reliability at the suppression hearing. Here the police relied on an identification of the defendant by a civilian property owner who was shown a video. The basis of the property owner’s knowledge was not demonstrated at the suppression hearing and the indictment was dismissed on appeal.

, ,

THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT, WITHOUT A WARRANT, THREE DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, BASED UPON THEIR INVESTIGATION WHICH INCLUDED VIEWING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TAPES; AN ARREST IN A PUBLIC HALLWAY OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING DOES NOT VIOLATE “PAYTON;” TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED COUNTY COURT’S RULING THAT THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s suppression of a handgun, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant based upon video evidence showing the defendant entering the victim’s apartment with the victim, showing the defendant leaving the apartment and demonstrating no one else entered the apartment during the relevant period of time (when the victim was shot).. County Court’s ruling that the arrest in the common hallway of an apartment building was a Payton violation was rejected because the defendant had no expectation of privacy there:

The police “may arrest a person without a warrant when [they] ha[ve] probable cause to believe that such person has committed a crime” … . “Probable cause ‘does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been . . . committed’ by the person arrested” … . “When determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest, the inquiry is not as to [the person’s] guilt but as to the sufficiency for arrest purposes of the grounds for the arresting officer’s belief that [the person] was guilty” … . “[T]he basis for such a belief must not only be reasonable, but it must appear to be at least more probable than not that a crime has taken place and that the one arrested is its perpetrator” … . ” ‘[T]he legal conclusion [as to whether probable cause existed] is to be made after considering all of the facts and circumstances together’ ” … . “A synoptic evaluation is essential because ‘[v]iewed singly, these may not be persuasive, yet when viewed together the puzzle may fit and probable cause found’ ” … .

… [O]n January 24, 2024, the tenant who actually rented the victim’s apartment in Jamestown found the victim deceased in the apartment and then reported the discovery to a neighbor, who then accompanied the tenant back to the apartment and called 911 to report the discovery of the victim’s body. The police thereafter discovered that the victim had sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the back of the head. As of that day and into the next, the murder weapon had not been located. During their investigation into the homicide, the police obtained security footage that depicted the hallway outside of the victim’s apartment. The security footage showed the victim and another male entering the victim’s apartment on January 22, 2024, but only the yet-to-be-identified male left the victim’s apartment later that same day. The investigative section commander with the investigating police department testified that, after obtaining a still photograph from the security footage and conducting further investigation, the police determined that defendant was the other male shown entering the apartment with the victim on January 22, 2024. Indeed, another officer recognized the other male—defendant—as the same person with whom he had a brief street encounter on January 22, 2024 in an alleyway on the backside of the victim’s apartment complex, i.e., defendant’s presence at the victim’s apartment complex was independently confirmed by a law enforcement source. Notably, during the street encounter that day, defendant partially misrepresented his name by giving his middle name as his surname. The police thus developed knowledge that defendant was the other male depicted leaving the victim’s apartment that same day. Based upon the police department’s review of the relevant duration of the security footage, however, no one else, including the victim, ever exited or entered the apartment from January 22, 2024 until January 24, 2024, i.e., the day that the victim’s body was discovered and the discovery was reported to the police. People v Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant in the hallway of his apartment building, without a warrant, three days after the shooting.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE ACCURACY OF THE DMV DATABASE WHICH PURPORTEDLY INDICATED DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED (THE BASIS FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP): THE PEOPLE THEREFORE WERE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV DATABASE TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE; BY FAILING TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment of conviction, suppressing the physical evidence and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that the traffic stop was justified because the People offered no proof defendant’s license had been suspended at the time of the stop. An officer testified, just prior to stopping the defendant, he checked the DMV database on his in-vehicle computer where the suspension of defendant’s license was indicated. But no evidence establishing the license suspension or the accuracy of the DMV database was introduced:

Defendant contends that the People were required to establish, at the suppression hearing, that defendant’s license had been suspended, because defendant challenged the reliability of the DMV information, and that the court therefore erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence. We agree.

“It is well settled that, although ‘a defendant who challenges the legality of a search and seizure has the burden of proving illegality, the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance’ ” … . As relevant here, a vehicle stop is permissible when based on probable cause that the driver has committed a traffic violation … .

Under the “fellow officer rule” …. , “[a] police officer is entitled to act on the strength of a radio bulletin or a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department and to assume its reliability” … , and the same rule applies to the DMV database accessible on an in-vehicle computer … . “[T]he probabilities are that such detailed information of the type in these communications does not find its way onto the police air waves [or mobile data terminal] without substantial basis” … .

“But where on a motion to suppress, a challenge to the [officer’s] action is made, the presumption of probable cause that originally cloaked that action disappears from the case” … .  If a defendant raises a “specific challenge” to the reliability of certain transmitted information, that information may not be relied upon by the suppression court … . “[B]are reliance on an unsubstantiated hearsay communication from the instigating officer or department will not suffice for probable cause” … . “[T]he People must demonstrate that the sender or sending agency itself possessed the requisite probable cause to act” … . “The pertinent inquiry in all situations has been directed to the nature and reliability of the information possessed by the person or agency transmitting the information” … . People v McGuire, 2026 NY Slip Op 04597, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: When the accuracy of information transmitted to the arresting officer is specifically challenged, the People must prove the reliability of the information. Here the accuracy of the DMV database (showing that defendant’s license had been suspended) was specifically challenged. Because the People did not attempt to prove the information in the DMV database was reliable, they did not demonstrate probable cause for the traffic stop.

 

, ,

THE POLICE ASKED FOR DEFENDANT’S NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH; HE PROVIDED A FALSE NAME; HE PROVIDED HIS REAL NAME ONLY AFTER HE WAS WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROVIDING A FALSE NAME AND DETAINED; THE POLICE QUESTIONING DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR THE MIRANDA WARNINGS BECAUSE THE POLICE WERE SEEKING ONLY “PEDIGREE” INFORMATION; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

he Fourth Department, affirming the conviction, determined there was no Miranda violation because the police asked only pedigree questions. The two dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he police officer, accompanied by two other members of the police department, responded to a residence after receiving a complaint that there were unwanted guests there. Upon their arrival, the complainant reported to the police that there were two unwanted guests in the residence: a female guest identified by name and a male guest supposedly named “Rodney.” The police identified the female guest by name and she agreed to leave without argument.

The police located the male guest—later identified as defendant—in the closet of a back bedroom underneath some clothes and other items. The police asked defendant to identify himself by name and date of birth. Defendant provided the police with the false name “Rodney Miller” and a purported date of birth. The police gave defendant multiple warnings that it was illegal to lie to them about his name, but defendant continued to provide the false name. The officer testified that defendant was not free to leave during the interaction until the police identified him. The officer explained, among other things, that the police did not provide defendant with Miranda warnings prior to asking for his name and date of birth because they were merely attempting to obtain defendant’s pedigree information as a routine matter for any such encounter. The officer further testified that the police then informed defendant that he was going to be detained and, upon being detained, defendant provided his real name. Thereafter, the police ultimately determined that there was an order of protection in place against defendant and in favor of the female guest. The police then arrested defendant for violating the order of protection and for providing false pedigree information. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court properly determined that the pedigree exception applied and thus properly denied that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements to the police. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that the purpose of asking pedigree questions of both the female guest and defendant was “[t]o identify who they were and advise them they were no longer welcome there,” and that requesting general information such as names and dates of birth was routine for any such encounter. The officer’s testimony thus established the administrative purpose for seeking pedigree information during an encounter of that nature: the police must know with whom they are speaking in a residence … . The People “thereby established the threshold basis for the pedigree exception to apply, i.e., the questions were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” … . * * *

As the Court of Appeals has cautioned, “[a]lthough there may be some circumstances where asking a suspect for core identifying information such as name, date of birth, and address will not qualify for the pedigree exception to Miranda, those circumstances will be rare” (id. at 416). People v Milton, 2026 NY Slip Op 04584, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point; The police may ask for a person’s name and date of birth without providing Miranda warnings, even when the police are aware the person has provided a false name.

 

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