You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPEALABLE ORDER IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, withholding a decision on the merits of the SORA risk-level determination by County Court until the People enter and serve an appealable order, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, explained the “appealable order” requirements for SORA proceedings:

Despite the statutory requirement that the court render a written SORA “order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), the lack of such orders is a recurring problem … . In some cases, as here, the court states during a bench decision that a so-ordered provision will be provided on the transcript but that does not occur … . In others, the court signs a standard form designating the defendant’s risk level classification without “so-ordered” language or specific findings and conclusions … . In each of these situations, this Court generally dismisses the appeal, as we must, because it is not properly before us due to the lack of an appealable order … . This creates a confusing situation in which no proper order exists regarding the defendant’s status under SORA (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

… Generally, in any civil case, upon a clerk’s entry of a written order, the prevailing party should serve a copy of the order, together with notice of entry, upon the losing party (see CPLR 2220 [b]; 5513 [a] … ). The losing party, once served with a copy of that entered order and notice of entry, has 30 days to take an appeal as of right (see CPLR 5513 [a]; see also Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Pursuant to SORA, “the district attorney, or his or her designee,” is statutorily required to appear at the SORA hearing on behalf of the state and bears the burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level determination being sought (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Thus, the People bear the responsibility of ensuring that a written SORA order is entered and that notice of entry, along with a copy of that written order, is served on the defendant. People v Lane, 2021 NY Slip Op 07324, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenge to a juror who said he would tend to believe the testimony of police officers should have been granted, despite the assurances elicited by the judge:

… [T]he statement of the prospective juror during voir dire with respect to the credibility of the testimony of police officers or bias in favor of the police cast serious doubt on his ability to render an impartial verdict, and the prospective juror failed to provide “unequivocal assurance that [he could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Specifically, after the prospective juror stated that he was a former correction officer and had “a lot of friends and family members” in law enforcement, he agreed that he would “be inclined to give more credibility to an officer than [he] would a lay person,” explained that, based on his experiences, he found police to be “honest people,” and specifically described one of the officers who would later testify for the People as “an honest person.” Although the court inquired further of the prospective juror, we conclude that the prospective juror’s answers to the questions asked by the court were “insufficient to constitute . . . an unequivocal declaration” that he could set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict … . People v Harrison, 2021 NY Slip Op 07445, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A MUCH HARSHER SENTENCE SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED AT TRIAL AMOUNTED TO COERCION RENDERING THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined the judge’s threat to impose a much harsher sentence if the defendant were to be convicted at trial amounted to coercion:

During a court appearance at which County Court extended a plea offer that called for an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment, the court informed defendant that “my policy is if a defendant gets convicted at trial, that means that individual has not accepted responsibility for the conduct that they’ve been convicted of, and . . . [i]n all likelihood the sentence [after trial] would not even be close to the 20 years [to life sought by the People], it would be much more — — many more years and you are looking at a potential [of] 100 years to life.” The court issued a virtually identical admonition at the next appearance, and defendant subsequently accepted the court’s offer of 15 years to life imprisonment.

… [T]he court’s statements during plea negotiations did “not amount to a description of the range of the potential sentences but, rather, they constitute[d] impermissible coercion, ‘rendering the plea involuntary and requiring its vacatur’ ” … . People v Goodwin, 2021 NY Slip Op 07418, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s former appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the misdemeanor endangering-the-welfare-of-child charges were time-barred. Therefore the writ of coram nobis was granted and the relevant counts were vacated:

The misdemeanors of which the defendant was convicted, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, were barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant demonstrated that trial counsel was not seeking a compromise verdict from the jury and thus did not have a strategic reason for failing to move to dismiss the misdemeanor counts as time-barred. The two counts of endangering the welfare of a child were not lesser included offenses of the rape and burglary counts of which the defendant was also convicted. Further, when the Supreme Court told counsel that it was “not going to charge everything,” trial counsel did not request that the misdemeanors be submitted to the jury, and replied that the jury would “either believe that my client is a rapist, or not.” Then, during his summation, trial counsel’s sole argument was that the defendant was misidentified. There was no reasonable explanation for trial counsel’s “failure to raise a defense as clear-cut and completely dispositive as a statute of limitations” … . People v Louis, 2021 NY Slip Op 07307, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS WHO WERE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined for cause challenges to three jurors should have been granted:

One of the three prospective jurors demonstrated that he would give more credence to a police officer testifying than to a civilian witness, and the court failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance that the prospective juror could render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . The other two prospective jurors provided answers that demonstrated an inability to comprehend the People’s burden of proof even after the court provided a straightforward explanation of this principle during voir dire … . People v Wilson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07305, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connelly, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 213-b(1) does not extend the statute of limitations for civil actions against someone “convicted of a crime” where that person has been adjudicated a youthful offender. Here plaintiff, Anthony Pitt, was accused of rape by Ericka Feagles. The charges against Pitt were resolved in his favor in October 2011. Although Feagles was subsequently charged with falsely reporting an incident and making a false written statement, she was adjudicated a youthful offender in connection with those charges in April 2012. Plaintiff’s August 2016 suit against Feagles would only be timely if the seven-year extension of the statute of limitations in CPLR 213-b(1) applied. The Second Department determined being adjudicated a youthful offender does not equate to being “convicted of a crime.” Therefore the extension in CPLR 213-b(1) did not apply and plaintiff’s suit was time-barred. The court noted the plaintiff could have brought an intentional tort action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations:

CPLR 213-b, entitled “Action by a victim of a criminal offense,” provides, as relevant, that “an action by a crime victim . . . may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant: (1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime” … . * * *

… [W]e … must consider the competing legislative purpose of the youthful offender statute. In enacting the youthful offender statute, the legislature sought to relieve youthful offenders of the consequences of a criminal conviction and give them a “second chance” … . It would be inconsistent with that legislative purpose to allow plaintiffs to commence civil actions against youthful offenders long after the conduct underlying the adjudication occurred … .

Our determination does not prohibit civil actions against defendants for the conduct underlying youthful offender adjudications. We simply hold that plaintiffs must commence such actions within the applicable statutes of limitations, without the benefit of the seven-year extension provided in CPLR 213-b(1). We note that here, the plaintiffs commenced the prior action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts and would have had a timely action against Feagles had they properly served her. The plaintiffs did not do so. Pitt v Feagles, 2021 NY Slip Op 07299, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BY A WITNESS TO THE CRIME: NO HEARING ON THE SUGGESTIVENESS OF COMMENTS MADE TO THE WITNESS BY THE POLICE WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS A LONG-TIME ACQUAINTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that where a witness to the crime is a long-time acquaintance of the defendant, a hearing about the suggestiveness of comments made to the witness by the police is not necessary. In addition, any identification of the defendant by the witness from a photo array was “merely confirmatory:”

“‘When a crime has been committed by a . . . long-time acquaintance of a witness there is little or no risk that comments by the police, however suggestive, will lead the witness to identify the wrong person'” … . Thus, when “the protagonists are known to one another, suggestiveness is not a concern” and a hearing regarding suggestiveness is not required … . Here, the detective’s testimony at the suppression hearing and the complainant’s testimony at trial demonstrated that the complainant knew the defendant for approximately three years through mutual friends, the complainant knew the defendant by his alias “Kilo,” and the defendant admitted to knowing the complainant. The Supreme Court therefore properly determined that the complainant was impervious to suggestion due to his familiarity with the defendant … . People v Richardson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined Family Court did lose jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding when complainant turned 21. The court noted that even if the complainant is incapacitated (but not judicially declared incompetent) Family Court has jurisdiction:

In the context of a family offense proceeding, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is generally confined to whether a qualifying offense has been committed between parties in a qualifying relationship (see Family Ct Act §§ 115[e]; 812[1] … ), irrespective of the complainant’s age. Thus, the fact that the complainant attained the age of 21 during the hearing did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

To the extent the respondent’s motion may be construed as challenging the petitioner’s ability to prosecute this matter in a representative capacity for the complainant, this does not amount to a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the proceeding … . Indeed, “[a]n incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person” … , and courts must not “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such” … . Rather, insofar as the record raises questions of fact as to whether the complainant may require the assistance of a guardian ad litem to protect her interests, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s request to appoint a guardian to the extent of conducting a hearing to determine whether such an appointment was necessary pursuant to CPLR 1201… . Matter of Vellios v Vellios, 2021 NY Slip Op 07276, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

A SENTENCE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE PURSUANT TO A CPL 440.20 MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence should not have been granted. A sentence may not be set aside as excessive pursuant to a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.20 motion:

The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion, and resentenced the … .

To the extent that the Supreme Court set aside the sentence as excessive, such determination was in error, as a “claim that [a] sentence is excessive may not be raised on a CPL 440.20 motion” … .

[T]he defendant did not show that the sentence should be set aside as illegal or unauthorized (see CPL 440.20). The sentence did not violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as there existed no exceptional circumstances warranting modification of the terms of imprisonment, which were within the statutory limits … . People v Chambers, 2021 NY Slip Op 07267, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, ,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and agreeing with the First and Second Departments, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits petitioner-sex-offender from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution:

Because petitioner was unable to locate housing in New York City that fulfilled the residency requirements imposed by SARA, even with respondents’ assistance (see Correction Law § 201 [5]), he remained incarcerated. * * *

We are guided … by a recent case concerning individuals in a situation akin to petitioner’s, in which the Court of Appeals held that “the temporary confinement of sex offenders in correctional facilities, while on a waiting list for SARA-compliant [New York City Department of Homeless Services] housing, is rationally related to a conceivable, legitimate government purpose of keeping level three sex offenders more than 1,000 feet away from schools,” and “[t]he existence of less restrictive methods of monitoring [individuals in these circumstances] during this period does not invalidate the use of correctional facilities” … . …

… “[i]n assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, they do not violate the [E]x [P]ost [F]acto [C]lause” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2021 NY Slip Op 07044, Third Dept 12-16-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy