, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE INITIAL POLICE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AS UNJUSTIFIED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a suppression hearing, determined defense counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge whether the police were justified in initiating the encounter with the defendant based upon a vague and ambiguous 911 call:

We conclude that the record establishes that defense counsel could have presented a colorable argument that the police officer’s actions were either not justified at the inception of the encounter or otherwise not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances presented (see De Bour, 40 NY2d at 215). Here, the officer’s encounter with defendant was based on a 911 call from a security guard at a nearby restaurant who said that he observed a man who had what “looks like a black phone, but then again . . . looks like a gun.” The security guard provided a description of the individual, and the guard said that he could not be sure, but that he thought the man might have been part of a dispute that had taken place at the restaurant earlier in the day. Notably, County Court held a Huntley hearing at which the arresting officer testified, but the testimony of the officer as well as his body cam footage, which was admitted at the hearing, presented a ” ‘close [question] under [the] complex De Bour jurisprudence’ ” regarding the legality of the police encounter … . People v Wyatt, 2026 NY Slip Op 00720, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Defense counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to challenge the initial encounter between the defendant and the police. The remedy was remittal for a suppression hearing.​

 

, ,

DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT A PREHEARING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) IS APPEALABLE; HERE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE ABUSE HE SUFFERED WHILE LIVING WITH HIS FAMILY AND THE STABBING OF A STRANGER AFTER HE HAD LEFT HOME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined (1) (disagreeing with the Third Department) defendant has the right to appeal from a prehearing dismissal of an application for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA), and (2) the dismissal of defendant’s application was appropriate because defendant did not meet his evidentiary burden. Defendant stabbed and killed a stranger during an argument when he was 20 years old. He pled guilty to manslaughter. He applied for resentencing under the DVSJA based upon alleged abuse by family members. The application was denied, in part, because the abuse was not alleged to have been ongoing at the time of the offense:

… [T]he Third Department dismissed an appeal from a prehearing order denying a DVSJA resentencing application. The Third Department reasoned that “in enacting the DVSJA, the Legislature expressly authorized appeals as of right to an intermediate appellate court from orders denying resentencing or granting resentencing and imposing a new sentence,” but provided no such express statutory right to appeal “from an order dismissing an application for resentencing prior to a hearing” … . However, … CPL 440.47(3) specifically provides that an appeal may be taken as of right from “an order denying resentencing;” there is no language limiting that appellate right only to orders issued after a hearing is held.

… [T]he First and Second Departments have repeatedly reviewed orders denying a DVSJA resentencing application without a hearing due to a defendant’s failure to satisfy CPL 440.47(2)’s evidentiary requirements … . * * *

Cognizant of the horrific abuse that defendant suffered throughout his life, we nonetheless note that defendant had by his own admission left his adoptive parents’ home almost three years before the underlying crime.  People v Croney, 2026 NY Slip Op 00630, First Dept 2-10-26

Practice Point: In the Third Department the prehearing denial of an application for resentencing under the DVSJA is not appealable. In the First and Second Departments, a prehearing denial is appealable.

Practice Point: Here there was no question defendant had suffered horrific abuse when living with his family. But the offense was committed after defendant had left home. The DVSJA was deemed not to apply under the facts.

 

,

DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined the misinformation provided to the defendant about his sentencing exposure rendered the pleas invalid:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving two consecutive 15-year sentences if he elected to go to trial. At most, however, he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [i]). Unbeknown to him, he was weighing the benefit of a plea offer of 20 years when in reality, it was the maximum he would serve even if convicted after trial. Defendant was not told about the capping statute and therefore lacked a “full understanding of what his plea connotes and of its consequence” … . This is particularly true because defendant’s guilty plea afforded him the exact sentence he would have served. The record is also clear that defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty and sought to withdraw his plea.

The totality of the circumstances reflect that defendant’s sentencing exposure played a decisive role in his decision to plead guilty, and his erroneous understanding that he faced 30 years in prison if he was convicted after trial had an “impact on [his] judgment” significant enough to render his guilty plea not knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Ramos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00430, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Here defendant agreed to a 20-year sentence with the understanding he could be sentenced to 30 years after trial. In fact, his sentence after trial would be capped at 20 years. His guilty pleas were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

 

, , ,

THE PROBATION-CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND COURT FEES WAS STRUCK BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT; THE FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the challenge to the probation condition that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees survives the waiver of appeal; (2) the condition should be struck because defendant is indigent; (3) the facial constitutional challenges to probation conditions were not preserved:

In determining whether a condition is reasonably necessary and related to a defendant’s rehabilitation, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of a defendant’s case … .

Defendant, who is indigent and a first-time offender, has only sporadic income and otherwise has been supported by his mother. Under these circumstances, the requirement that he pay a total of $375 in surcharges and fees as a condition of probation “will not assist in ensuring [that] he leads a law-abiding life and is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation” … . Accordingly, that condition is stricken. People v Acosta, 2026 NY Slip Op 00324, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The probation-condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and court fees should not have been imposed on this indigent defendant.​

 

, , ,

TWO IRRELEVANT PROBATION CONDITIONS STRUCK, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES SURVIVE A WAIVER OF APPEAL BUT MUST BE PRESERVED; AS-APPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ARE PRECLUDED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) non-constitutional challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal; (2) although the facial constitutional challenges to probation conditions survive a waiver of appeal, they were not preserved for appeal; (3), the as-applied constitutional challenges are precluded by the waiver of appeal; and (4) two probation conditions must be struck as not relevant to defendant’s criminal history or personal life. In addition, the decision identifies several probation conditions which were deemed properly imposed in this drug-possession case:

At the time of his arrest, defendant possessed 100 glassines of heroin and 50 vials of crack cocaine. Accordingly, the sentencing court providently deemed it “reasonably necessary” to order defendant to “[a]void injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and . . . not consort with disreputable people” “to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so” … . Based on defendant’s selling of heroin, the court also properly ordered him to “[w]ork faithfully at a suitable employment or pursue a course of study or vocational training … that can lead to suitable employment” and to “[s]ubmit proof of such employment, study or training … . For the same reason, the court providently required defendant to submit to testing for alcohol and illegal substances and to participate in substance abuse programming … . …

There is … no evidence to support requiring defendant, who has no children, to “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities” … . … [T]here is no evidence to support requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang … “. People v Tompson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00325, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what probation conditions are appropriate for a drug-possession conviction.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the appealability of challenges to probation conditions.

 

,

NINE OF ELEVEN PROBATION CONDITIONS STRICKEN AS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION, INCLUDING THE CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND OTHER FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined nine probation conditions must be stricken as not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation:

… [N]ine conditions were “not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life” (… Penal Law § 65.10[1]). There is no evidence that defendant had a history of gang affiliation or that his offense was connected to gang activity, and as such the condition related to a prohibition on gang affiliation … .

Considering defendant’s denial of drug and alcohol use, the Department of Probation’s assessment of defendant for substance abuse with no recommendation for further treatment, and the lack of any evidence defendant’s offense involved drug or alcohol use, conditions related to drug and alcohol testing and treatment … .

The condition of defendant’s probation requiring that he pay the mandatory surcharge and other fees … is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life, and must be stricken … .

The remaining conditions that must be stricken … are not applicable to defendant or reasonably related to his rehabilitation … . People v Balogh, 2026 NY Slip Op 00323, First Dept 1-22-26

Practice Point: Here the probation condition that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and other fees was stricken as not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation.

 

, ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because it was not signed in open court:

Defendant’s waiver of indictment … was invalid because the record does not demonstrate that defendant satisfied the requirement of NY Constitution, art 1, § 6 and CPL 195.20 that the written waiver of indictment must be signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel … . The indictment waiver was dated February 3, 2021, the same date on which the SCI was issued, but a date on which there appears to have been no appearance in this case. Further, the court’s description of the indictment waiver suggested that the court understood it to have been signed before the day of the plea. The record as a whole does not clearly support an inference that the “open court” requirement was satisfied. A less than compelling inference does not fulfill the “unequivocal dictate” that the record demonstrate that the defendant signed the waiver in open court … . “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved” … . People v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 00210, First Dept 1-15-26

Practice Point; If the record does not unequivocally demonstrate a waiver of indictment was signed in open court, the guilty plea is invalid. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCING, THE COURT HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); AT THE HEARING DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN SHE STABBED THE VICTIM; THAT TESTIMONY TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION BY THE JUDGE; THE MAJORITY APPLIED AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AND REVERSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESEVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant raised a question whether defendant stabbed the victim in self-defense in open court between the plea and sentencing which the judge was required to, but failed to explore. The majority applied an exception to the preservation requirement triggered when an element of the crime is negated by the defendant in open court between the plea and the sentencing. Although nothing in the in the plea colloquy negated an element of the crime, during the post-plea hearing on defendant’s application for alternative sentencing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) defendant testified she acted in self defense. The two dissenters argued the exception to the preservation requirement did not apply and the appeal should not have been considered:

Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy or at sentencing that negated an element of the crimes to which she pleaded guilty, raised the possibility of a particular defense or suggested an involuntary plea so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation rule … . That said, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is implicated whenever a defendant “negate[s] an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make[s] [a] statement[ ] suggestive of an involuntary plea” in open court between the plea and sentencing, obliging the trial court to “conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s statements during the DVSJA hearing did not signify a lack of understanding about the nature of the charges to which she pleaded guilty or that her plea was involuntary. We are mindful that defendant’s statements during the hearing suggest that she had a potential justification defense, but the hearing was contemplated by the plea agreement itself, the statements were made for the purpose of establishing defendant’s entitlement to a reduced sentence under Penal Law § 60.12 and defendant twice reaffirmed her plea during the hearing. Notably, at the end of the hearing, defense counsel expressly stated that defendant had “knowingly plea[ded guilty to the indictment.” Under these particular circumstances and when considered in context, defendant’s postplea statements “did not raise a legitimate question about the voluntariness of [defendant’s] plea” … so as to impose upon the court a duty of further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Brown-Shook, 2026 NY Slip Op 00172, Third Dept 1-16-26

Practice Point: Here the defendant pled guilty and moved for an alternative sentence under the DVSJA. At the DVSJA hearing she testified she stabbed the victim in self defense. There is a narrow exception to the preservation requirement when a defendant negates an element of the crime in open court between pleading guilty and sentencing. Over a two-justice dissent, the majority applied the preservation exception and reversed on the ground the judge did not explore the possibility defendant had acted in self defense.

 

, ,

EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WHICH TOOK ON THE FUNCTION AND APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge deprived defendant of a fair trial by excessive questioning ot eh defendant which “took on the function and appearance of an advocate.” The error was not preserved but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

Supreme Court engaged extensively in its own areas of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the complainant’s injury and clarified whether the injury was likely to have been intentionally caused by a sharp instrument. The court asked numerous leading questions of the People’s witness, a paramedic, as to what the paramedic observed, and guided the prosecution at length in its questioning of the paramedic. The court also assisted the prosecution in laying a foundation for the admission of evidence and repeatedly engaged in lengthy colloquies with various prosecution witnesses in order to effectively instruct these witnesses how to refresh their recollections in order to provide evidence favorable to the prosecution.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court improperly took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in commentary on the testimony against the defendant, as well as on questions posed by defense counsel. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … , thus depriving the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 00145, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge engaged in questioning of witnesses which took on the function and appearance of an advocate, depriving defendant of a fair trial. Although the issue was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice.

 

, ,

DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE “DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OF A MOTION FOR A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THAT DEFENDANT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, disagreeing with the Third Department, determined that the “dismissal without prejudice” of a motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) constitutes a denial of the motion which is appealable:

… [W]e disagree with the Third Department and conclude that under the plain language of CPL 440.47(3)(a), an order “dismissing” a resentencing application at step two pursuant to CPL 440.47(2)(d) is an order “denying resentencing” … , rendering it appealable as of right pursuant to CPL 440.47(3)(a). This is because the effect of an order “dismissing” a resentencing application is that the defendant has been denied resentencing. We conclude that the fact that the statute uses the word “dismiss” in CPL 440.47(2)(d) (when indicating what the court shall do with an application for resentencing that does not contain evidence corroborating the defendant’s claim that he or she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the offense) and “denying” in CPL 440.47(3)(a) (when indicating what orders an appeal may be taken from) does not mean that the Legislature did not intend for a defendant to be able to appeal from an order determining that a defendant has failed to provide evidence … corroborating the defendant’s claim that he or she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the offense. People v Nymeen C., 2026 NY Slip Op 00144, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: There is a split of authority on the question whether the “denial without prejudice” of a defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) is appealable. It is not appealable in the Third Department but is appealable in the Second Department.