You are here: / Criminal Law
, , , ,

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This Court has found … that CPLR 5205 (c) is superseded by the Son of Sam Law … .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

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the search warrant for business computers, computer files and documents amounted to a general warrant, and the items seized should have been suppressed. The warrant was procured by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) and targeted two realty companies which were alleged to have involvement in the illegal construction and demolition of a rent-stabilized building:

The search warrant … permitted the OAG to search and seize broad categories of items relating to 1578 Union Street Realty Corporation, Dream Home Realty, and a number of other businesses allegedly controlled by the defendant through which he had conducted real estate transactions. The items permitted to be searched and seized included: corporate documents; employment records, employee lists, and employment contracts; all calendar books, appointment books, and address books; all computers, computer hard drives, and computer files stored on other media; and all bank, tax and financial records. The warrant did not name or specify any particular crime or offense to which the search was related, and did not incorporate the affidavit by reference. * * *

… [O]ther than a date restriction covering a period of approximately five years, the warrant permitted the OAG to search and seize all computers, hard drives, and computer files stored on other devices, without any guidelines, parameters, or constraints on the type of items to be viewed and seized … . As has been observed by federal courts, where the property to be searched is computer files, “the particularity requirement assumes even greater importance” … since “[t]he potential for privacy violations occasioned by an unbridled exploratory search” of such files is “enormous” … .

Additionally, as to paper documents, the warrant merely identified generic classes of items, effectively permitting the OAG to search and seize virtually all conceivable documents that would be created in the course of operating a business … . People v Melamed, 2019 NY Slip Op 09295, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined County Court should not have held defendant violated the probation condition prohibiting him from committing a new  crime because the evidence of the new crime was not presented to the court until after the close of evidence:

… [T]he defendant correctly contends that the County Court erred in finding that he violated the condition of his probation prohibiting him from committing any additional crime, offense, or violation based solely on his arrest and indictment for attempted murder. While the court would have been permitted to take judicial notice of the defendant’s subsequent indictment for attempted murder … , that evidence was presented after the close of evidence at the revocation of probation hearing. The defendant had no opportunity to be heard regarding the indictment and related documents relied upon by the court. Accordingly, the court should not have found that the defendant violated the condition of his probation based upon the commission of a new crime … . People v Herring, 2019 NY Slip Op 09287, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

SPANISH-LANGUAGE CONVICTION RECORDS FROM PUERTO RICO, WHICH WERE NOT TRANSLATED, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT TO BE A SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating the risk level determination, determined the proof defendant was a sex offender was insufficient. The documents relating to a conviction in Puerto Rico were in Spanish and were not translated:

We agree with defendant that, in making its determination that defendant is a sex offender, the Board erred in relying on documents in Spanish that were not accompanied by an English translation (see generally CPLR 2101 [b]). Upon defendant’s objection during the SORA hearing to the Board’s determination, no additional documents were submitted to support the Board’s determination. Thus, there is no English-translated document stating the offense of which defendant was convicted in Puerto Rico, and therefore there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was convicted of a felony offense in another jurisdiction … . In addition, the purported sex offender registration form showing that defendant was required to register in Puerto Rico is entirely in Spanish, and thus there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Puerto Rico … . People v Ramos, 2019 NY Slip Op 09153, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have negotiated a plea deal with a codefendant in exchange for testimony against the defendant:

… [T]he court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant[,] requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . Here, “by assuming the function of an interested party and deviating from its own role as a neutral arbiter, the trial court denied defendant his due process right to [a] fair trial in a fair tribunal’ ” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial before a different justice on counts one and two of the indictment … . People v Lawhorn, 2019 NY Slip Op 09223, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

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