You are here: / Criminal Law

THE SENTENCING COURT CAN LOOK BEYORD THE WORDING OF A FOREIGN STATUTE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE FOREIGN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FOREIGN FELONY IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY RE: SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender even though the Pennsylvania statute at issue did not require knowledge of the precise controlled substance which was possessed. The First Department looked beyond the wording of the statute to the allegations in the accusatory instrument:

The knowledge requirement of the Pennsylvania statute at issue here is satisfied when it is established that the defendant knew he or she possessed an illegal substance, without the necessity of a showing that he or she knew which illegal substance was possessed … . In contrast, the knowledge requirement under the New York Penal Law sections relevant here “demands proof of ‘knowledge that the item at issue was, in fact, the controlled substance the defendant is charged with selling or possessing'” … . This presents the possibility that defendant could have been convicted of a felony under the Pennsylvania statute without being guilty of a felony in New York.

However, a sentencing court may go beyond the statute and examine the underlying accusatory instrument when the foreign statute under which the defendant was convicted renders criminal several different acts, some of which would constitute felonies and others of which would constitute only misdemeanors in New York … .

An examination of the underlying accusatory instrument revealed that defendant had “knowingly manufacture[d], deliver[ed] or possess[ed] with intent to manufacture or deliver (crack/cocaine and powder cocaine), a controlled substance.” Accordingly, defendant’s Pennsylvania conviction was the equivalent of a felony in New York, and defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender. People v Simmons, 2021 NY Slip Op 03924, First Dept 6-17-21

 

,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court should have conducted a minimal inquiry to address defendant’s complaints about defense counsel. The dissenters argued County Court had, in fact, conducted an adequate inquiry:

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s complaints were sufficiently serious to trigger the court’s duty to inquire … . Indeed, the complaints suggested on their face the possibility of a complete breakdown of communication with defense counsel, either owing to or exacerbated by defense counsel’s alleged unwillingness to respond to any of defendant’s repeated inquiries over nearly 12 months of representation; were evidenced by defendant’s apparent confusion over the status of the separate indictments; and were never refuted by defense counsel, who remained silent in response to defendant’s repeated in-court complaints … . Further, the court itself appeared to acknowledge that defendant’s complaints, if true, established that there was “a problem” with the representation.

Thus, the court had a duty to conduct a minimal inquiry, which the court failed to do … .

From the dissent:

… [T]his is not a case where the court “erred by failing to ask even a single question about the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” … . Instead, because the court “repeatedly allowed defendant to air his concerns about defense counsel” and reasonably concluded after listening to those concerns that they “were insufficient to demonstrate good cause for substitution of counsel” … , we would affirm. People v Robinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03939, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANT’S AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING THE REQUEST WITHOUT MAKING A MINIMAL INQUIRY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court should have conducted in inquiry to evaluate defendant’s complaints about his attorney and his request for new counsel:

… [T]he court committed reversible error by failing to conduct an inquiry following defense counsel’s submission of a letter seeking to be relieved from the case and in light of defendant’s responses to that letter. In particular, the record establishes that defense counsel—prompted by defendant’s prior specific complaints about her failure to file motions, seek relevant evidence through discovery such as surveillance video of the incident, investigate specified witnesses, and engage in meaningful consultation and preparation—expressed a breakdown in trust and communication based on her interactions and appearances with defendant and sought to be relieved from representing defendant on the ground that she was unable to handle his case … . … “[D]efendant’s request on its face suggested a serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict with his lawyer, as evidenced by the [acknowledgment] of counsel that a complete breakdown of communication and lack of trust had developed in their relationship” … . “[W]here[, as here,] potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel’s admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” … . People v Darwish, 2021 NY Slip Op 03936, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined it was error to allow a police officer to identify the defendant in a surveillance video, and it was error to allow police officers to testify about what they learned from others (hearsay) about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. Although the errors were deemed harmless because of the overwhelming evidence, these two rulings are significant. The court noted there is no Molineux exception for hearsay for so-called background information:

​“A lay witness may give an opinion concerning the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the

than is the jury” … . Here, “there was no basis for concluding that the [officer] was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether . . . defendant was depicted in the video” … .  The officer was not familiar with defendant, and there was no evidence showing that defendant had changed his appearance before trial … .

… [T]he court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from police officers regarding what they learned from others about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. The challenged testimony was hearsay that was not admissible under any cognizable exception to the hearsay rule. The People essentially argue that this testimony was admissible under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) to complete the narrative with background information. We reject that argument and reiterate that “there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay” … . There is also no general exception to the hearsay rule for testimony relating to background conduct, information, or explanation of a subject matter or event … . People v Harlow, 2021 NY Slip Op 03933, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

, ,

WHERE A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE PRESENTATIOIN OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE RECORD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined County Court should not have restricted the hearing to only the allegations of ineffective assistance that could not have been raised on direct appeal. Where a motion to vacate a conviction is based on evidence outside the record, as well as evidence on the record, all the evidence is admissible:

A “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a single ground or issue upon which relief is requested . . . [Such] a claim . . . ‘is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole’ ” … and must be ” ‘viewed in totality’ ” … . Although “[a] single error may qualify as ineffective assistance . . . when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , a defendant may also establish that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel by arguing that the cumulative effect of multiple errors rendered defense counsel’s performance ineffective, even if those errors, “considered separately, may not have constituted ineffective assistance”… . Where, as here, a defendant alleges errors of defense counsel based on both matters appearing in the record and matters dehors the record, i.e., a ” ‘mixed claim,’ ” a “CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim of ineffectiveness in its entirety” … . People v Mack, 2021 NY Slip Op 03982, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE STAIRWAY TO THE ATTIC, WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, WAS NOT PART OF THE APARTMENT DESCRIBED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE STAIRWAY WAS A COMMON AREA; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in a stairway leading to the attic should have been granted because the warrant did not authorize the search of that area and the People did not demonstrate the stairway was a common area:

… [T]he warrant at issue authorized a search of “865 woodlawn upper apt. buffalo, n.y. 2 ½ story wood frame house white with white trim. attached garage and common areas,” and drugs and drug packaging materials were found by the police behind a doorway on stairs leading to the attic. The doorway to the attic was in a hallway outside of the upper apartment and, as a result, the attic cannot be considered a part of the upper apartment itself … . …

The question thus becomes whether the area where the drugs and packaging materials were found constitutes a common area. Common areas of multi-unit buildings are those areas ” ‘accessible to all tenants and their invitees’ ” … . Here, the contraband was found by the police on the stairs leading to the attic, and a police officer testified at the suppression hearing that there was a closed door leading to the attic from the second floor common area. The officer in question was not present when the door was opened by other officers who executed the warrant, and he did not know whether the door had been locked. When asked whether “the door could have been locked and needed to be breached,” the officer answered, “That is entirely possible.” The People did not call any of the officers who were present when the door to the attic was opened, forcibly or otherwise, nor did they call the landlord or anyone who resided at the property.

Defendant testified that the door to the attic was closed and locked, and that, during the execution of the warrant, the door was broken down by the police. If the door was indeed locked, it cannot be said that the attic was accessible to all tenants and their invitees. People v Moore, 2021 NY Slip Op 03975, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for a downward departure in this child pornography case should have been granted:

At a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C) to determine the defendant’s risk level, defense counsel requested that, despite the defendant’s score on the risk assessment instrument, which placed him at the lower end of the presumptive level two risk category, the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to grant a downward departure and designate the defendant a level one sex offender … . …

Under the circumstances of this case—including, among other things, the small number of images found on the defendant’s cell phone and the absence of any evidence of child pornography on his laptop, the brief period of time during which the defendant is alleged to have collected child pornography, the defendant’s lack of criminal history, and a psychosexual evaluation report finding that the defendant’s risk of reoffense was low—we find that a preponderance of the evidence established that the risk assessment instrument overassessed the defendant’s risk of reoffense, and that his request for a downward departure should be granted in the exercise of discretion … . People v Sestito, 2021 NY Slip Op 03859, Second Dept 6-15-21

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT USE ANY PHYSICAL FORCE IN REFUSING TO COOPERATE AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP; OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration second degree, determined there was no evidence the defendant used physical force. Passive refusal to cooperate after a traffic stop is not enough:

… [T]he defendant was argumentative throughout the traffic stop and arrest-booking process, repeatedly refused to answer the officers’ questions, and refused to participate physically in any way in the arrest-booking process, including refusing to stand for a photograph, to provide his fingerprints, or to sign a Miranda form … . The People concede that the defendant did not physically resist the officers, but argue that his conduct constituted physical interference because he refused to cooperate physically in the arrest-booking process. However, neither the defendant’s conduct during the traffic stop nor his conduct during the arrest-booking process constituted a knowing, physical interference with, and disruption of, the official function being performed by the officers. The defendant did not struggle, physically resist, or do anything to interfere with the officers, and he did not intrude into, or get in the way of, any ongoing police activity … . The defendant’s passive unwillingness to cooperate with the officers during the traffic stop and arrest-booking process lacked the requisite intentional physical component … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03851, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

,

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A FRYE HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA-RELATED EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court should have held a Frye hearing on the admissibility of DNA-related evidence generated by the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST):

Prior to trial, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion to preclude the People from introducing at trial DNA testing results and testimony concerning the Forensic Statistical Tool (hereinafter FST) or, in the alternative, for a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir]) to determine the admissibility of the evidence generated by the FST.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting FST evidence without first holding a Frye hearing … . As proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming without the FST evidence … , the error was not harmless … . Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Applewhite, 2021 NY Slip Op 03847, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying criminal matter brought against the plaintiffs (the Melchers) by the town had been terminated in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution action against the town should not have been dismissed. The town brought criminal charges based upon plaintiffs’ construction of docks in a marina. Pursuant to the Navigation Law, the state owns the land beneath the lake and the town, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to bring the criminal charges. The criminal charges had been dismissed on that ground:

In order to maintain a civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding, and (4) actual malice” … . A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused where the disposition is final, “such that the proceeding cannot be brought again” … , and the disposition is not “inconsistent with a plaintiff’s innocence” … . Whether a disposition was inconsistent with innocence is a case-specific determination that considers the circumstances of the particular case … .

Here, the 2008 criminal proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(f) because the Town lacked legal authority to regulate the activity upon which the criminal charges were based. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdiction over the [Melchners] ha[d] never been properly obtained and accordingly the [Melchners] [could] not be prosecuted for the offenses alleged.” Under the circumstances, the disposition was not inconsistent with the Melchners’ innocence … . Melchner v Town of Carmel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03830, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

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