You are here: / Criminal Law
,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BASED UPON AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL MATTER BEFORE THE CHILD WAS BORN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined an order of protective issue in a criminal proceeding before the child was born did not prohibit contact between the child and father. Father’s petition seeking custody and/or parenting time should not have been dismissed on that ground:

At the initial appearance on the petition, Family Court stated that the order of protection had been issued in a criminal matter and that it barred the putative father from having any direct or indirect contact with the mother. The mother then moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the order of protection rendered the petition moot. Family Court agreed and granted the motion. The putative father appeals.

The order of protection at issue — a copy of which is not in the record but the terms of which we take judicial notice — was issued prior to the child’s birth and does not bar the putative father from having contact with the child. It is not, as a result, fatal to the putative father’s petition … . Remittal is therefore required for Family Court to consider whether an order of filiation should be issued (see Family Ct Act § 564) and, if so, whether contact with the putative father would be in the best interests of the child and could be accomplished without contravening the terms of the order of protection … . Matter of Justin M. v Valencia N., 2019 NY Slip Op 07453, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

,

BRADY MATERIAL WHICH CONTRADICTED THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant should have been provided with exculpatory (Brady) evidence. Eyewitnesses to the assault made statements that there were two perpetrators, which directly contradicted the People’s theory that defendant was the sole perpetrator:

The first two prongs of Brady being satisfied, our inquiry thus turns to whether the suppressed information was material. “In New York, the test of materiality where . . . the defendant has made a specific request for the evidence in question is whether there is a reasonable possibility’ that the verdict would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed” … . … [B]oth witnesses’ statements, if true, would have directly contradicted the People’s theory of the case that defendant was the sole perpetrator. Although the People presented other evidence of defendant’s guilt, the only witness who identified defendant at trial initially told the police that he did not see the perpetrator’s face. Considering that the nightclub owner provided the police with the name of another possible assailant, and based on the other evidence presented at trial, it is clear that access at least to him could have allowed defendant to develop additional facts, which in turn could have aided him in establishing additional or alternative theories to support his defense. Given the substance of the nightclub owner’s statements and the nature of the People’s case, we cannot say—under our less demanding standard—that there was no “reasonable possibility” that the defense’s investigation of the witnesses would not have affected the outcome of defendant’s trial … . People v Rong He, 2019 NY Slip Op 07477, CtApp 10-17-19

 

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the petition, determined that respondent, who had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, was not provided sufficient information before admitting to a probation violation. Because of the collateral consequences of a “juvenile delinquent” adjudication, the appeal is not moot, even though the period of respondent’s custody and care under the Office of Children and Family Services had expired. In addition, the error did not required preservation:

Initially, we note that preservation of this claim was not required … . Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) requires a court to advise a respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and to question both the respondent and his or her parent, if present, as to whether the respondent committed the act contained in the admission, whether the respondent is voluntarily waiving his or her right to a fact-finding hearing, and whether the respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders … . The May 2018 allocution did not meet these statutory requirements. Although Family Court did advise respondent, to some extent, regarding his rights, the failure to meet the statutory mandates rendered the allocution inadequate. Critically, although respondent’s mother was present, the court failed to question her regarding respondent’s waiver of the fact-finding hearing … or about his failure to attend counseling. Instead, respondent was merely asked whether he had sufficient time to speak to his parents about the allocution … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether respondent and his mother understood the possible specific dispositional orders that might result from his allocution … . Although it was stated that placement outside the home was an available option, the court did not “ascertain whether [respondent] and his parent[] were aware of the full extent of such a disposition” … . Matter of Elijah X., 2019 NY Slip Op 07464, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

,

DNA EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS A VIOLATION OF THE RAPE SHIELD LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly refused to allow defendant to present DNA evidence to demonstrate the complainant’s sexual history in this sexual offense case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the introduction of certain DNA evidence at trial. Introducing evidence of additional DNA donors not linked to the defendant for the purpose of demonstrating the complainant’s sexual history with persons other than the defendant falls “squarely within the ambit of the Rape Shield Law, which generally prohibits [e]vidence of a victim’s sexual conduct’ in a prosecution for a sex offense under Penal Law article 130 (CPL 60.42) because such evidence . . . serves only to harass the alleged victim and confuse the jurors'” … . Moreover, the evidence sought to be admitted was not relevant to any defense … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, introducing the evidence through a witness other than the complainant does not render the Rape Shield Law inapplicable … . People v Hubsher, 2019 NY Slip Op 07416, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMAIN VALID AFTER DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT CRIME WHEN THE INITIAL SENTENCE PROMISE COULD NOT BE FULFILLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because his consent to the waiver was not renewed after he pled to a different crime after the initial sentence promise could not met:

… [T]he Supreme Court was unable to fulfill its sentencing commitment because the sentence it had promised was illegal … . Although the defendant ultimately agreed to plead guilty to a different crime in return for a different sentence, the modification of the material terms of the original plea agreement “vitiated defendant’s knowing and intelligent entry of the waiver of appeal”… . Under such circumstances, “it was incumbent on the court to elicit defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal” … . Since the court did not obtain the defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal after the material terms of the original plea agreement were changed, the defendant is not precluded from arguing that the sentence imposed was excessive … . People v Ellison, 2019 NY Slip Op 07413, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S QUESTIONS WHETHER COMPLAINANTS HAD HIRED LAWYERS AND HAD SUED DEFENDANT-TEACHER AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS CHILD SEX ABUSE CASE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, CONVICTION REVERSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A READBACK OF TESTIMONY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this child sex abuse prosecution, determined that the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to present all evidence of defendant’s alleged prior sexual abuse of children after defense counsel asked complainants whether they had hired a lawyer and were suing the defendant-teacher and the school district based upon defendant’s alleged sexual abuse of children. Re-direct should have been limited to only the evidence necessary to clarify and explain the reasons for the witness’s hiring a lawyer and bringing a lawsuit. The Second Department also noted that the trial judge should have participated in the readback of testimony and the harmless error analysis is not applicable:

… [D]efense counsel asked questions regarding the civil actions in an attempt to impeach credibility and establish that a motivation for some of the complainants’ testimony against the defendant was monetary gain or a pecuniary interest. This line of inquiry did not open an unfettered passageway for the People to elicit extensive and prejudicial evidence regarding alleged uncharged complaints. The extraneous testimony of alleged uncharged complaints did not serve to explain or clarify whether the civil actions provided certain complainants with a financial incentive to testify.

Moreover, the admission of evidence of alleged uncharged complaints violated the basic principle underlying Molineux and its progeny that “a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on the basis of a defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged …”. …

The Court of Appeals has explained that “if in any instance, an appellate court concludes that there has been such error of a trial court, such misconduct of a prosecutor, such inadequacy of defense counsel, or such other wrong as to have operated to deny any individual defendant his fundamental right to a fair trial, the reviewing court must reverse the conviction and grant a new trial, quite without regard to any evaluation as to whether the errors contributed to the defendant’s conviction” … . People v Watts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants to intercept cell phone calls and text messages made and received outside New York State:

“[A]ny justice of the supreme court of the judicial district in which the eavesdropping warrant is to be executed” (CPL 700.05[4]) “may issue an eavesdropping warrant . . . upon ex parte application of an applicant who is authorized by law to investigate, prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the particular designated offense which is the subject of the application” (CPL 700.10[1]). Although the word “execute” is not defined in CPL article 700, the plain meaning of the word “execute” and the use of that word in relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Law reveal that an eavesdropping warrant is “executed” when a communication is intercepted by law enforcement officers, that is, when the communication is “intentionally overheard or recorded” by law enforcement officers (CPL 700.05[3][a]; see CPL 700.35[1]). Here, the eavesdropping warrants were executed in Kings County, New York, where the communications were intercepted by the New York City Police Department … . Therefore, under the applicable provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to issue the eavesdropping warrants.

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s argument that the eavesdropping warrants, which were authorized for the purpose of investigating crimes that were occurring in New York, constituted an unconstitutional extraterritorial application of New York State law … . People v Schneider, 2019 NY Slip Op 07424, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

, ,

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF ‘SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY;’ BASED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the People did not present sufficient proof to demonstrate the victim’s eye injury rose to the level of “serious physical injury” and reduced the Assault First conviction to Assault Second. Defendant threw a brick from an overpass which struck the windshield of the victim’s car, sending glass into her eye:

Before the incident, the victim had not experienced blurry vision in her left eye. She testified that her overall vision worsened since the incident, and that she has a permanent scar on her cornea. At the time of trial, the victim visited the doctor every six months for evaluation of her corneal scar. She acknowledged, however, that before the incident, she wore eyeglasses. The medical records indicated that she had been diagnosed and treated for an eye condition, blepharitis. The medical records further indicated that, in a follow-up visit in February 2016, the victim reported no pain or change in vision. Notably, the People did not proffer any medical testimony to interpret and explain the medical records; explain the nature, severity, and prognosis of the victim’s eye injury; or to explain whether any preexisting eye condition or conditions were affected by the incident, or whether any such preexisting eye condition was a cause of any of her current complaints … .

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the verdict convicting the defendant of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence. Given the lack of medical testimony to explain the nature of the victim’s eye injury, an acquittal on the charges of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree would have been reasonable. Giving appropriate weight to the evidence submitted on the issue of ” [s]erious physical injury,'” we conclude that the jury was not justified in finding that the People proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim’s eye injury created a substantial risk of death or constituted a “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00[10] …). People v Palant, 2019 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTO ARRAY IN A PROCEDURE CONDUCTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST BY ANOTHER OFFICER, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not demonstrate that the officer who arrested defendant had probable cause to do so. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. The People presented evidence that Officer Gorman conducted a photo identification procedure and, after the robbery complainant identified the defendant, Officer Gorman issued an “I-card.” But there was no evidence of the arresting officer’s basis for arrest:

Under the fellow officer rule, “even if an arresting officer lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest will be lawful if the officer acts upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a superior or [fellow] officer or another police department provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest'” … .The evidence presented by the People did not establish that the officer who actually arrested the defendant had probable cause to do so … . Officer Gorman testified that he issued an I-Card for the defendant, but he also testified that the defendant was arrested “on a different matter.” The People did not present any testimony from the arresting officer as to what information he possessed or how he received that information … . Therefore, contrary to the People’s contention, there was insufficient evidence from which to infer that the police arrested the defendant pursuant to the I-Card or at the direction of Officer Gorman … . Furthermore, the People presented no evidence at the hearing regarding the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest or the charges on which he was arrested, nor do they argue on appeal that there was any source of probable cause for the defendant’s arrest other than the I-Card. People v Hightower, 2019 NY Slip Op 07280, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

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