You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY INVOLVED SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR WEAPONS; THEREFORE THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT SUBMIT TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND HOME WAS STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, striking a probation condition, determined (1) the requirement that defendant submit to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle and home was not appropriate, and (2) the challenge to the probation condition survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant’s challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he consent to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle, and home survives the appeal waiver … . “Defendant was not under the influence of any substance or armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted, and he had no history of offenses involving substance abuse or weapons” … . Accordingly, the consent-search condition was not necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life ( … see Penal Law § 65.10[1]), or reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation (see Penal Law § 65.10[2][l]), rendering the condition improperly imposed … . People v Avila, 2025 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 6-3-25

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s criminal history does not involve drugs or weapons, requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches as a condition of probation is not supported.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE CRIMES INVOLVED ARE NOT “REGISTRABLE OFFENSES” AND NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY WERE SEX OFFENSES, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED SPECIALIZED SEXUAL OFFENDER CONDITIONS UPON DEFENDANT’S PROBATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying the judgment of conviction, determined the specialized sexual offender conditions should not have been imposed upon defendant’s probation because the underlying offenses had no connection to sex offenses:

Although neither burglary in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.20), the crime for which defendant was indicted, nor criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15 [1]), the crime for which defendant was convicted, qualify as registerable offenses under Correction Law § 168-a (2), we previously have held that it may be “proper to impose sex offender conditions in cases which do not technically qualify as sex offender cases, . . . so long as the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, are reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life, and are necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” … . That said, upon reviewing defendant’s criminal history and considering the circumstances underlying the crime of conviction, we agree with defendant that the specialized sexual offender conditions imposed by County Court do not meet that standard.

Regardless of whether defendant completed sex offender treatment prior to being successfully discharged from probation in Florida in September 2000, the fact remains that — in the nearly 25 years that have elapsed since then — defendant has not been charged with any additional sex offenses; indeed, prior to the underlying trespass incident in March 2023, it appears that defendant — with the exception of an unspecified “criminal registration” offense in Florida in November 2000 — was not charged with any new crimes at all. Additionally, the criminal trespass conviction did not stem from defendant entering a school, no children were present at the time of the offense (or otherwise involved or implicated in its commission) and the underlying crime was not even tangentially related to either a sex or child welfare offense … . Under these circumstances, County Court abused its discretion in imposing the specialized sexual offender conditions upon defendant’s probation. People v Rhodehouse, 2025 NY Slip Op 03228, Third Dept 5-29-25

Practice Point: Although specialized sexual offender conditions can be imposed upon probation where the underlying crimes are not sex offenses, here it was an abuse of discretion to do so, based upon the absence of sex offenses from defendant’s criminal history.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE VICITM’S TWO SISTERS WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION; DEFENDANT ADMITTED HAVING ROUGH SEX WITH THE VICTIM AND CLAIMED IT WAS CONSENSUAL; THE PRIOR CRIME EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANT HAD SEX WITH THE VICTIM. BUT RATHER TO PROVE HIS STATE OF MIND, HIS INTENT TO HAVE NONCONSENSUAL SEX BY FORCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over two concurrences, affirming defendant’s rape conviction, determined the evidence defendant had sexually assaulted the victim’s sisters was admissible under Molineux. Defendant admitted having sex with the victim, characterizing it as consensual rough sex. The evidence of the prior assaults on the victim’s sisters was not offered to prove defendant had sex with the victim, but rather to prove the defendant’s state of mind, his intent:

​This Court has consistently deemed Molineux evidence admissible where a defendant offers a theory of defense that assumes the underlying conduct but disputes that the defendant possessed the requisite guilty intent or state of mind in the commission of said conduct … . This rule makes sense because the focus in that situation “is not on the actual doing of the act, for the act is either conceded or established by other evidence. Rather, the element in issue is the actor’s state of mind, and evidence of other similar acts is admitted under this exception because no particular intent can be inferred from the nature of the act committed” … .​ * * *​

Defendant presented a theory at trial that the sexual act was consensual. Thus, the primary question for the jury was not whether sexual intercourse occurred but whether defendant possessed the requisite intent: did he intend to have sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and did he intend to use forcible compulsion to do so. That defendant had previously sexually assaulted the victim’s sisters—defendant’s other sisters-in-law—under hauntingly similar circumstances “has obvious relevance as tending to refute defendant’s claim of an innocent state of mind” … . It tends to make “the innocent explanation improbable” … .

Additionally, the unique facts of this case render the Molineux evidence relevant as background information pertaining to the nature of defendant’s relationship with the victim and the dynamics of the family at large … . During the charged rape, defendant stated: “I am waiting for all your sister. I want to do like this. So I am waiting for this time.” Isolated, this statement may leave the jury puzzled. The Molineux evidence fills that gap and provides clarity and context for the jury. Further, defendant threatened to rape one of A.A.’s sisters if she told anyone what defendant did, and A.A. did disclose defendant’s assault on her to multiple members of the family, making evidence of that assault particularly illuminating … . Lastly, defense counsel suggested during opening argument that this family may have been engaging in “inner family marriages,” thus rendering defendant’s relationships with the other women in the family pertinent. People v Hu Sin, 2025 NY Slip Op 03100, CtApp 5-22-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear examples of when evidence of prior similar crimes is admissible under Molineux. Here defendant claimed the rough sex with the victim was consensual. Evidence of prior sexual assaults on the victim’s sisters was admissible to prove defendant intended to have sex by force without the victim’s consent.

 

,

CLAIMANT’S SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTION WAS VACATED AFTER THE ALLEGED VICTIM RECANTED; CLAIMANT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE PURSUANT TO COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 8-B FOR UNJUST CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT; THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, affirming the dismissal of claimant’s action for unjust conviction and imprisonment, determined claimant, whose sexual abuse conviction was vacated after the alleged victim recanted, did not prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Tuckett filed this claim against the State, seeking damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b. Tuckett needed to “prove by clear and convincing evidence” the remaining two elements of his claim: that “he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument” and that “he did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction” (Court of Claims Act § 8-b [5] [c], [d]). * * *

A claimant who asserts a damages claim against the State under section 8-b must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence. That task “is certainly not a simple one” … . After hearing from and observing Tuckett and N.M. (the alleged victim), the Court of Claims determined that the accusations were credible and the recantation was not, and that Tuckett therefore failed to carry his burden. We see no reversible error in that decision. Tuckett v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03099, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: An action against the state for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 8-b requires that the claimant prove his or her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Here the testimony of the alleged victim, who had recanted his allegations of sexual abuse, was not enough.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO COULD NOT SAY HE WOULD NOT HOLD DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINT HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A POLICE OFFICER WHO SPENT ONLY 10 OR 15 MINUTES WITH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who said he would hold defendant’s failure to testify against him should have been granted. Because there will be a new trial, the Second Department noted that a police officer who had limited contact with the defendant should not have been allowed to identify the defendant in a video:

The prospective juror maintained that he was unable to “promise” that his decision would not be affected if the defendant did not testify at trial. Since the prospective juror made statements that cast doubt on his ability to render an impartial verdict under the proper legal standards and did not, upon further inquiry, provide unequivocal assurances that he would be able to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence adduced at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge … .

… [W]e note that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing a police detective to identify the defendant as the individual depicted in a surveillance video. Generally, “‘lay witnesses must testify only to the facts,’ and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,’ as it is the jury’s province ‘to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts'” … . In determining whether to permit this testimony, a court must consider “whether the witness has had sufficient contact with the defendant to achieve a level of familiarity that renders the lay opinion helpful” … . In making this assessment, courts may consider (1) the witness’s general level of familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, (2) whether the witness’s familiarity spanned an extended period of time and variety of circumstances, (3) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s appearance at the time the surveillance footage was taken, and (4) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s customary manner of dress or clothing (see id. at 648-649). Here, there was no basis for the court to conclude that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the surveillance video … . The police detective testified that he spent a total of 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant. While there was testimony that the defendant’s appearance had changed prior to the trial, through weight loss and cutting his hair, “the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury——which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant——would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 03087, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: A challenge to a prospective juror who cannot state unequivocally he or she would not hold defendant’s failure to testify against the defendant must be granted.

Practice Point: A police officer who is allowed to identify the defendant in a video is offering an opinion, not facts. Here the officer had spent only 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant and therefore was not qualified to offer an opinion on the identity of the person depicted in the video.

 

, , ,

HERE DEFENDANT MADE A TIMELY REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion (three judges), reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that the judge’s failure to conduct an inquiry before denying defendant’s request to represent himself violated his constitutional right to self-representation:

A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed pro se (see US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6; see also CPL 170.10 [6], 180.10 [5], 210.15 [5] [codifying a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation]). Defendant invoked that right when he informed Supreme Court that he “would like to represent [him]self” at his upcoming trial. People v McIntyre (36 NY2d 10 [1974]) and its progeny required that the court make a searching inquiry into defendant’s unequivocal and timely request to proceed pro se, to determine whether that request was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Contrary to that rule, the court immediately denied defendant’s request without inquiry, and it expressly refused to consider any further request until the day of trial. The court’s failure to inquire into defendant’s request violated his constitutional right to self-representation. Therefore, we reverse and grant defendant a new trial.

On June 4, 2018, the parties appeared for trial. * * * This colloquy followed:

THE DEFENDANT: I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: I can’t hear you.
THE DEFENDANT: Cocounsel. I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: Cocounsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: What is that?
THE DEFENDANT: Meaning I’m going to represent myself in this case.
THE COURT: You mean pro se.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I will be going pro se at trial. I will be representing myself acting as my own.
THE COURT: You made no application before me.
THE DEFENDANT: I never said I wanted a trial by jurors. I never told this individual that I wanted a trial by jurors.
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Lewis, I’m assuming now you’re trying to play games with this court. . . . I’ll continue with this trial. If you want to speak to [defense counsel] about certain issues, I’ll hear [defense counsel] tomorrow morning.”

The following morning, the court invited defendant to raise any issues before proceeding with jury selection. Defendant asserted again that he did not want defense counsel to represent him, alleging that counsel was ineffective, had a conflict of interest, and was not working on his behalf. The court only responded, “[o]kay. Nicely done,” and continued the proceeding. People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03011, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation. A judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” upon a timely request.​

 

,

THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW WAS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES; THEREFORE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS DEVOID OF INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH STATUS, MENTAL HEALTH AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE DEFICIENT PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s negotiated sentence, determined the failure to interview the defendant before creating the presentence report  was tantamount to the failure to conduct the mandatory presentence investigation. The defendant did not take any action to avoid the presentence interview which was scheduled but cancelled due to technical difficulties:

At sentencing, defense counsel confirmed that the presentence report was prepared without any interview because of technical difficulties. The court remarked this was “not unusual,” but directed that defendant be arraigned for sentence. In response to the court’s invitation for the parties to address any issues relevant to sentence, defense counsel stated only that he relied on the promised sentence. The court proceeded to impose sentence with no further discussion of the presentence report.

Presentence investigations of persons convicted of felonies are statutorily mandated, and a court may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such an investigation (see CPL 390.20[1] …). The presentence report may be “the single most important document at both the sentencing and correctional levels of the criminal process” … , as it contains multiple categories of information concerning the defendant’s background and the subject offense … .

Because there was no presentence interview, the presentence report in this case was seriously deficient. The report was devoid of information regarding defendant’s education, employment history, health status, and mental health, each a statutorily prescribed category … . The report also noted that it had no information as to defendant’s motive. People v Pizzaro, 2025 NY Slip Op 03025, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: A presentence report which is incomplete because the defendant was never interviewed requires vacation of the sentence, notwithstanding that the sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

, ,

BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED; ON REMITTAL THE PEOPLE SHOULD PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE REQUEST TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AND, TO FACILITATE ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED REVIEW, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating the protective order and remitting the matter, determined the County Court failed to hold the hearing which is required where defense counsel did not consent to the issuance of a protective order. The Third Department offered guidance on how the further proceedings should be conducted, i.e., defense counsel should be given advanced written notice of the request for a protective order (a motion by order to show cause), and, to facilitate an expedited review, defense counsel should be provided with a copy of the protective order:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70 (3), “[u]pon request for a protective order, unless the defendant voluntarily consents to the people’s request for a protective order, the court shall conduct an appropriate hearing within three business days to determine whether good cause has been shown.” Here, it is undisputed that defense counsel did not consent to the People’s proposed protective order for the disputed materials…. . …

… [I]t is true that, under certain circumstances and in an appropriate case, CPL 245.70 (1) permits a court to conduct ex parte proceedings and accept in camera submissions. … “[T]he better practice, in most cases, would be for the People to provide the defendant with advanced written notice, by way of motion brought on by order to show cause, that certain information had not been disclosed and a protective order was being sought under CPL 245.70” … . Proceeding in this manner would “allow defense counsel to see the portions of the People’s written application that contained legal argument or other matter that would not reveal the information sought to be covered by the protective order” … , and ensure that defense counsel has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing to the fullest extent practicable. …

… [R]ecognizing that CPL 245.70 (6) provides an opportunity for expedited review of a protective order by a Justice of the Appellate Division, “within two business days of the adverse or partially adverse ruling,” the party seeking such expedited review should be provided a copy of the subject order. While the papers submitted in support of the People’s application for a protective order and the hearing transcript may be appropriately sealed to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information … , the same does not hold true for the protective order itself. That said, in drafting a protective order, the court should be mindful not to discuss the protected materials or include confidential information that would obviate the basis for granting the protective order or sealing the documents and materials considered. People v Murphy, 2025 NY Slip Op 02975, Third Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Where defense counsel does not consent to a protective order, the statute requires the judge to conduct a hearing. Failure to hold the hearing requires vacation of the protective order.

Practice Point: The better practice is to notify defense counsel of the request for a protective order by a motion brought by an order to show cause.

Practice Point: Defense counsel who seeks an expedited review should be provided with a copy of the protective order.

 

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