You are here: / Criminal Law
,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. There was a question of fact whether defense counsel was aware he could call an expert to testify defendant, who had ingested drugs, did not have the required mental state (depraved indifference). The First Department noted Supreme Court may have improperly relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.30 (d) which applies only if the motion is based solely on an allegation by the defendant (not the case here):

While the motion court had a sound basis for its conclusion that there was “no reasonable possibility” that defendant’s trial counsel “was unaware that he could call an expert to testify about the defendant’s state of mind,” we find that this was not an adequate basis for denying the motion without a hearing in these circumstances. First, to the extent the court may have been relying on CPL 440.30(d), that section permits summary denial when “there is no reasonable possibility that such an allegation is true,” but it applies only when the allegation “is made solely by the defendant.” That is not the case here, where the allegation at issue regarding trial counsel’s statements was made by defendant’s motion counsel based on his own knowledge.

Nor do we believe that this is a case such as People v Samandarov (13 NY3d 433 [2009]), where the lack of merit of a CPL 440.10 motion could be determined on the parties’ submissions, despite it being “theoretically possible that a hearing could show otherwise” (id. at 440). Here, while the court’s perception may well be borne out, there are issues of fact sufficient to warrant a hearing … . People v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00067, First Dept 1-7-20

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT POSSESSED LESS THAN 25 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND,” AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prison contraband in the first degree was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged possession of less that 25 grams of marijuana:

Defendant asserts that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2003]). In that case, the Court held that the possession of a small amount of marihuana, specifically less than 25 grams, did not, absent aggravating circumstances, constitute dangerous contraband within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 205.00 (4) and 205.25 as is necessary to support the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree … . Defendant contends that there is no valid basis in the indictment for this charge because he possessed less than 25 grams of marihuana. The People concede that this is a jurisdictional defect warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction. In addition, defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in its entirety, and the People consent to such relief given that defendant’s guilty plea satisfied both charges contained therein. Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, the case law and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed, thereby vacating the plea and sentence, and that the indictment must be dismissed in its entirety. People v Lawrence, 2020 NY Slip Op 00004, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER RE THE DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA); THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Count Court had not issued a written order with respect to the defendant’s risk assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and therefor the appeal was not properly before the court:

Following a hearing at which the People advocated for an upward departure, County Court granted the request and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation. Defendant appeals.

It is a statutory requirement that County Court “render an order setting forth its determinations and findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3] … ). That written order then must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Although the record before us contains a decision of County Court that sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court did not issue a written order and the risk assessment instrument does not contain the “so ordered” language so as to constitute an appealable order. Absent any order by the court, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant, a sex offender who was found to suffer from a mental abnormality after Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 trial, was not entitled specific performance of his plea agreement, which made no mention of the of potential Mental Hygiene Law proceedings:

Respondent next challenges Supreme Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract — one that entitled him to specific performance. Proceedings pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act “are expansive civil proceedings, which are entirely separate from and independent of the original criminal action” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that trial courts are required to advise defendants who plead guilty regarding the direct consequences of such plea, but they have no obligation to iterate every collateral consequence of the conviction” … . As relevant here, “the potential for either civil confinement or supervision pursuant to [the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act] is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, the current state of the law does not require that defendants be informed of it prior to entering a plea of guilty” … . As such, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s request for specific performance. Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s assertion that specific performance is appropriate because the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 litigation ensued following the expiration of his sentence, as the article 10 proceeding commenced upon the date that the petition was filed, prior to respondent’s release date … . Matter of State of New York v Robert G., 2020 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, , , ,

PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW, BE REACHED TO SATISFY A $1 MILLION JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE CRIME VICTIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Son of Sam Law trumped the CPLR, the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York with respect to the pension of a former NYC police officer who was convicted of murder and attempted murder and against whom plaintiff obtained a personal injury judgment of more than $1 million:

“Executive Law § 632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime by allowing crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protecting those funds while litigation is pending” … . … [I]n 2001, the Legislature amended the [Son of Sam] law to allow a crime victim to seek recovery from “funds of a convicted person,” which includes “all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime,” but specifically excludes child support and earned income (Education Law § 632-a [1] [c]). * * *

This Court has found … that CPLR 5205 (c) is superseded by the Son of Sam Law … . Defendant’s assertions that Retirement and Social Security Law § 110 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-264 protect his pension from assignment to satisfy plaintiff’s money judgment are similarly without merit due to the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law … . Prindle v Guzy, 2020 NY Slip Op 00011, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

,

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the hearing and trial courts should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a lawsuit naming the officer:

Both the hearing and trial courts erred in denying defendant’s request to cross-examine a police officer regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed, among other things, that this particular officer arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him … . The civil complaint contained specific allegations of falsification by this officer that bore on his credibility at both the hearing and trial. At each proceeding, this officer was the only witness for the People. People v Burgess, 2019 NY Slip Op 09364, First Dept 12-26-19

 

,

AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been granted without further inquiry into defendant’s mental health. The First Department found that the results of defendant’s CPL Article 730 competency exams, finding that defendant may have been delusional, constituted “red flags” that warranted further inquiry before allowing defendant to represent himself:

Not every indication of a defendant’s mental infirmity mandates inquiry. Expressions of paranoia or distrust of an attorney, common for many defendants, are not red flags … . Nor is a defendant’s belief that he or she was framed by police … . On the other hand, notwithstanding a CPL Article 730 exam finding defendant fit, court observations that a defendant was irrational and had a tendency to “fly off the handle” warranted a searching inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity … . So too, inquiry was warranted where defendant was observed by the court to be unruly, volatile and physically menacing … . In many cases, whether or not the behavior would trigger an inquiry may be a question of degree. * * *

Defendant appeared for trial before a justice who was presiding over the case for the first time. Defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to proceed pro se. Neither defense counsel nor the prosecution made the court aware of defendant’s CPL Article 730 exams or the potential for him to be experiencing delusional thoughts. Although the trial court conducted an extensive colloquy with defendant regarding the waiver of the right to counsel, at no point did the court inquire into defendant’s mental health. We find that, notwithstanding other aspects of the record supporting defendant’s capacity, the information in the CPL Article 730 reports indicating a potential for delusional thought was a red flag that required a particularized assessment of defendant’s mental capacity before resolving his request to proceed pro se … . People v Zi, 2019 NY Slip Op 09353, First Dept 12-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING PRODUCED AND APPARENT POSSESSION (IN A BACKPACK) OF CHEMICAL REAGENTS (BATTERIES AND SALT) USED IN METH PRODUCTION, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF METH LAB EQUIPMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions relating to his presence in an apartment where methamphetamine was being produced, determined the evidence did not support the defendant’s constructive possession of the relevant contraband in the apartment:

… [W]e find that the evidence fell short of establishing that defendant constructively possessed the requisite items with the necessary intent. The uncontroverted evidence established that defendant did not live in or have keys to the apartment or store any of his personal belongings there … . Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the apartment was leased to Stevens and Short, that Schunk had recently been staying in the apartment and that defendant and Gardner had arrived at the apartment, as guests, not long before the police. Stevens, Short and Gardner … adamantly testified that, although he likely knew what was occurring in the apartment, defendant did not participate in the process of preparing, producing or manufacturing the methamphetamine…. . Stevens and Short each testified that defendant did not use methamphetamine that day, that they had never observed defendant use methamphetamine and that defendant was only in the apartment to try to convince Schunk that she needed to enter a rehabilitation program. Stevens also testified that defendant did not know how to make methamphetamine. Further, the responding officers stated that, unlike their observations of Stevens, they did not observe any black soot, which is indicative of methamphetamine production, on defendant’s clothing or hands. …

Stevens testified that defendant arrived with a backpack and that batteries (a reagent [used in meth production]) from that backpack went into the bathroom with him and Gardner. Stevens vaguely testified that the backpack contained “lab equipment,” but stated that he did not see defendant use anything out of the backpack. The evidence revealed that a backpack was ultimately recovered from the living room and that the backpack contained sea salt, a reagent in the production of methamphetamine, but no “lab equipment.”

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , the evidence could reasonably support the conclusion that defendant had dominion or control over two reagents — batteries and salt. However, considering the witness testimony and the photographs demonstrating the extremely cluttered state of the living room and apartment overall, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that defendant “had the ability and intent to exercise dominion or control over” any of the items of lab equipment seized from the apartment … . People v Gillette, 2019 NY Slip Op 09323, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT ARE SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK CITY’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW; THERE IS NO NEED TO ALLEGE SIMILAR ASSAULTS AGAINST OTHER WOMEN TO DEMONSTRATE ANIMUS ON THE BASIS OF GENDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a concurring opinion, determined that plaintiff’s complaint, alleging rape and sexual assault, stated a valid cause of action under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM). The central question on appeal was the meaning of the term “animus.” Supreme Court held that allegations defendant had sexually assaulted other women were properly included in the complaint to demonstrate animus. The First Department held plaintiff’s allegations of rape and assault, without allegations involving other women, were sufficient:

… [P]laintiff’s claims in the amended complaint that she was raped and sexually assaulted are sufficient to allege animus on the basis of gender. She need not allege any further evidence of gender-based animus. Defendant has conceded that the allegations herein are sufficient to show that the acts alleged were “committed because of gender or on the basis of gender.” That the alleged rape and sexual assault was “due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender” is sufficiently pleaded by the nature of the crimes alleged.

Rape and sexual assault are, by definition, actions taken against the victim without the victim’s consent … . Without consent, sexual acts such as those alleged in the complaint are a violation of the victim’s bodily autonomy and an expression of the perpetrator’s contempt for that autonomy. Coerced sexual activity is dehumanizing and fear-inducing. Malice or ill will based on gender is apparent from the alleged commission of the act itself. Animus inheres where consent is absent. Breest v Haggis, 2019 NY Slip Op 09398, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

JUDGES SHOULD NOT ASK A DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE IS A US CITIZEN IN PLEA PROCEEDINGS; RATHER JUDGES SHOULD INFORM ALL DEFENDANTS THE PLEA TO A FELONY MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION IF HE OR SHE IS NOT A US CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence, rejected defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed he would be deported as a consequence of the plea. There was no indication in the record that plaintiff was not a US citizen. Defendant told the court he was a citizen. And the pre-sentence report indicated defendant was a naturalized US citizen. However, the Second Department took the opportunity to instruct the courts how the citizenship issue should be handled:

… [A] trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea’s deportation consequence based on the defendant’s answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose them to deportation . This recommendation is consistent…  with the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement in Peque: “[T]o protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in New York, trial courts must now make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty pleas may expose them to deportation” … . Additionally, this recommendation is consistent with the legislature’s pronouncement in CPL 220.50(7). Although that statute, deemed to be repealed September 1, 2020, indicates, in part, that “[t]he failure to advise the defendant pursuant to this subdivision shall not be deemed to affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction, nor shall it afford a defendant any rights in a subsequent proceeding relating to such defendant’s deportation, exclusion or denial of naturalization[,]” it specifically provides, in part, that “[p]rior to accepting a defendant’s plea of guilty to a count or counts of an indictment or a superior court information charging a felony offense, the court must advise the defendant on the record, that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, the defendant’s plea of guilty and the court’s acceptance thereof may result in the defendant’s deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States”… . Moreover, giving a “short, straightforward statement” … regarding deportation will neither add significantly to the length of the plea proceeding nor encroach meaningfully on the trial court’s discretion. Whether a defendant receives the Peque warning should not depend on the defendant having to acknowledge, on the record in open court, that he or she is not a United States citizen, particularly since eliciting noncitizen status may raise, in some cases, concerns of compelled self-incrimination … . People v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 09303, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

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