You are here: / Criminal Law
,

CLAIMANT’S CONVICTION FOR THE UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINES DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT CLAIMANT PERFORMED WORK OR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING WORK SUCH THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that claimant’s conviction for the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine did not constitute work within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law 114-a. Therefore, claimant did not perform any work or make any false statements regarding work which would disqualify him from receiving benefits upon release from prison:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f for the purpose of obtaining compensation . . ., or for the purpose of influencing any determination regarding any such payment, a claimant knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact, such person shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation.” “In making such a determination, the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its determination as to whether a claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … .

To be guilty of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, a person must possess, at the same time and location, “[t]wo or more items of laboratory equipment and two or more precursors, chemical reagents or solvents in any combination,” with the intent to use such products to unlawfully manufacture, prepare, or produce methamphetamine, or knowing that another intends to do so (Penal Law § 220.73 [1]). The elements of the crime do not require that any work be performed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the conviction alone is insufficient to establish any work activity by claimant or that he received any type of remuneration … . Matter of Stone v Saulsbury/Federal Signal, 2019 NY Slip Op 04250, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MISCALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION, WHICH CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defense counsel’s failure to properly calculate the days of delay attributable to the People for the speedy trial motion constituted ineffective assistance:

Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel … with regard to his speedy trial motion. In his CPL 30.30(2) motion for defendant’s release, defense counsel mistakenly calculated 99 days of includable time, instead of the correct calculation of 103 days. The People conceded the 99 days, and the court released defendant. When defense counsel thereafter moved to dismiss the indictment under CPL 30.30(1), defense counsel and the prosecutor repeated that error in calculating the delay as 99 days, with the court ultimately finding only 181 days of includable time and denying the motion. Had counsel correctly calculated 103 days of chargeable time, the includable time would have totaled 185 days, rather than 181, and defendant’s speedy trial claim would have been meritorious. We have considered and rejected the People’s arguments concerning the 63-day period following defendant’s uncontested motion for release from custody, which the court found to be includable in its ultimate calculation on the dismissal motion. People v Coulibaly, 2019 NY Slip Op 04289, First Dept 5-30-19

 

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, COURT NOT BOUND BY PURPORTED COMMITMENT TO A PARTICULAR SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, PRESENTENCE REPORT INADEQUATE, SENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and the sentencing court did not have sufficient information about the defendant at the time of sentencing. The presentence investigation report was incomplete, in part because there was no interpreter available. The Second Department further determined that the sentencing court could not be bound by a purported commitment to the prosecutor at the time of the plea to impose a particular sentence:

Given the defendant’s inexperience with the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court’s terse colloquy at the plea allocution was insufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal … . There is no indication in the record that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty … . Although the defendant signed a written waiver of the right to appeal, nothing in the record demonstrates that the document was translated for the defendant, who required the use of a Sinhala interpreter, before it was presented to him for signature … . …

“…. [A] sentence negotiated prior to the plea, and in most cases prior to receipt of a presentence report, does not automatically become the sentence of the court” … . The determination of an appropriate sentence requires the court to exercise its discretion “after due consideration given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … . …

Most troubling … is that in preparing the presentence investigation report for the Supreme Court in advance of sentencing, the Department of Probation did not interview the defendant because it was “unable to secure an interpreter” on two scheduled dates for an interview. Thus, the presentence investigation report does not contain any information regarding the defendant’s mental status, educational background, employment history, or military background. The report indicates that the defendant’s physiological health was “unknown,” and that his psychological condition was “unavailable.” Even though the Department of Probation did not interview the defendant, the report indicates that the defendant “reported no use of controlled substances and/or alcohol.”

Under the circumstances here, the information contained in the record of the plea proceeding, the sentencing proceeding, and the presentence investigation report was insufficient for a sentencing court to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. People v Pelige, 2019 NY Slip Op 04204, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

, , , ,

PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF THE DNA PROFILE AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS UPON BEING ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, RESPONDENT JUDGE DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER EXPUNGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, granted a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-judge to consider whether the expungement of DNA evidence derived from a sample provided with petitioner’s consent after arrest is appropriate. The petitioner was subsequently adjudicated a youthful offender (YO) and sought expungement on that ground. The DNA evidence is maintained by the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). The First Department concluded that the OCME is subject to the State Executive Law and a court has the discretionary authority to expunge the YO’s DNA profile from the SDIS (index system used for mutual exchange, use and storage of DNA records), along with the underlying DNA records:

[Re: the propriety of the Article 78 proceeding:] In the absence of an available remedy at law (see CPL 450.20), the important issues raised on this appeal will escape this Court’s review unless this petition proceeds … . Moreover, this Court has original jurisdiction over the issues raised because they concern a sitting justice (CPLR 506[b][1]; 7804[b] …). …

There is abundant support for the conclusion that OCME’s responsibilities in testing, analyzing and retaining DNA data is subject to the State Executive Law. Respondent’s arguments that the statutory reference to a “state” DNA identification index in Article 49-B necessarily excludes a local DNA laboratory like that the one operated by OCME, is unavailing. …

… [W]e hold that the same discretion afforded to a court under the Executive Law to expunge DNA profiles and related records when a conviction is vacated may also be exercised where, as here, a YO disposition replaces a criminal conviction. The motion court, in finding that, as a matter of law, it had no discretion, failed to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider whether in the exercise of discretion, expungement of petitioner’s DNA records was warranted in this case. …

Petitioner did not, either expressly or by implication, waive the privilege of nondisclosure and confidentiality by providing his DNA before the court made its determination that he was eligible for YO status. Clearly the Executive Law permits an adult who has voluntarily given his or her DNA in connection with a criminal investigation the right to seek discretionary expungement where a conviction had been reversed or vacated. A youthful offender does not have and should not be afforded fewer pre-YO adjudication protections than an adult in the equivalent circumstances. Matter of Samy F. v Fabrizio, 2019 NY Slip Op 04120, First Dep 5-28-19

 

,

THE TERM ‘AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE’ DOES NOT MANDATE THAT AN OFFENDER WITH A PRIOR SEX-CRIME FELONY BE CLASSIFIED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, BOTH COUNTY COURT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL MISUNDERSTOOD THE TERM (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that both County Court and defense counsel misunderstood the meaning of “automatic override” in the context of whether an offender who has a prior felony sex-crime conviction mandates a level three classification:

… [T]he use of the words “automatically” or “automatic override” does not mandate that a particular individual be classified as a risk level three sex offender; rather, the “automatic” nature of the override results in a presumptive risk level three classification — a classification from which a court indeed may depart based upon the evidence presented … . Thus, “the application of the override for a prior felony sex crime is presumptive, not mandatory or automatic” … , and “[t]reating the presumptive override as mandatory is a ground for reversal” … .  …

Defense counsel’s misunderstanding of the override — as evidenced by his erroneous statement that defendant’s prior felony conviction for a sex crime resulted in “an automatic override” to a risk level three classification — deprived defendant of the opportunity to present factors in support of a downward departure; similarly, County Court’s misapplication of the override — premised upon the court’s mistaken belief that “a mandatory override to a risk level [three] status” was “required” — foreclosed any inquiry into whether the presumptive risk level three classification was in fact warranted … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 04060, Third Dept 5-22-19

 

SENTENCING COURT MUST MAKE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS FIRST DEGREE RAPE CASE, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence for rape first degree and remitted the matter for a determination of defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status:

… [A] “youth” is defined as “a person charged with a crime alleged to have been committed when he [or she] was at least [16] years old and less than [19] years old” (CPL 720.10 [1]), and an “eligible youth” is “a youth who is eligible to be found a youthful offender” (CPL 720.10 [2]). “Every youth is so eligible” (CPL 720.10 [2]) — subject to certain statutory exceptions including, as pertinent here, a conviction for “rape in the first degree . . ., except as provided in [CPL 720.10 (3)]” … . To that end, CPL 720.10 (3) provides, in relevant part, that “a youth who has been convicted of . . . rape in the first degree . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that one or more [statutory] factors exist,” including “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” … . …

Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the underlying offense and, despite his conviction of rape in the first degree, he was not statutorily precluded from being found to be an eligible youth (see CPL 720.10 [3]). Where, as here, a defendant has been convicted of an enumerated sex offense … , the sentencing court, “in order to fulfill its responsibility under CPL 720.20 (1) to make a youthful offender determination for every eligible youth, . . . must make the threshold determination as to whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … — “‘even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain” … . People v Robertucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 04057, Third Dept 5-23-19

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the Superior Court Information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include an offense that was charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense:

… [T]he waiver of indictment and SCI are jurisdictionally defective because they did not charge an “offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.20 …). Pursuant to CPL 195.20, a waiver of indictment must contain “each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” which “may include any offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury and any offense or offenses properly joinable.” To that end, “a defendant is held for the action of a [g]rand [j]ury on both the offense charged in the felony complaint as well as its lesser included offenses” … , because, “[f]or purposes of waiver of indictment, a charge that is a lesser included offense of a crime charged in the felony complaint is viewed as the ‘same offense’ and may be substituted for the original charge in a waiver of indictment and SCI”… . Accordingly, “a defendant may waive indictment and plead guilty to an SCI that names a different offense from that charged in the felony complaint only when the crime named in the SCI is a lesser included offense of the original charge” … . …

Inasmuch as it is possible to commit the crime charged in the felony complaint — possession of a loaded weapon — without committing the crime charged in the SCI — possession with intent to use the weapon unlawfully — the crime charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the former and the SCI could not serve as a proper jurisdictional predicate for defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Diego, 2019 NY Slip Op 04054, Third Dept 5-22-19

, , ,

NEITHER THE VICTIM WITNESS PROTECTION ACT NOR THE MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT BASED SOLELY UPON RESTITUTION ORDERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that neither the Victim Witness Protection Act (VWPA) nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) provided for a private right of action for a judgment based solely upon restitution ordered in a criminal case:

… [T]he VWPA makes civil remedies available to collect restitution but does not make restitution a civil judgment that can simply be enforced in a private suit … . Rather, a victim may pursue a civil action for damages in connection with the injuries that resulted in a restitution order, and the restitution order may provide assistance in proving liability, but the petitioner may not rely entirely on the restitution order and the amount ordered in the criminal action. Thus, the petitioner can separately plead and prove liability and damages under either a statutory or a common-law cause of action if the restitution order fails to satisfy the victim … . …

Some cases may support the conclusion that under the MVRA, a victim who has obtained a lien on property based on a restitution order may enforce that lien in a special court proceeding … . However, these cases provide no support for the conclusion that a victim may enforce the abstract judgment itself without obtaining a lien, especially given that this would contradict the language of 18 USC § 3664(m), explicitly requiring a lien. Petitioner has obtained an abstract of judgment, but never recorded it as a lien on defendant’s property or brought an action to enforce it. … [T]he MVRA does not provide a cause of action for a private victim to enforce an abstract judgment on a restitution order, which is exactly what petitioner is seeking to do. Therefore, petitioner has no standing under the MVRA. Matter of Mikhlov v Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 04046, First Dept 5-23-19

 

,

911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the victim’s 911 call was properly admitted as an excited utterance, even though the call was made about five minutes after the assault with a butcher knife:

“A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance— made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay” … . The determination of admissibility of a statement as an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court, which “must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” … . Here, the evidence demonstrated that the 911 calls qualified as excited utterances. First, the nature of the attack on the complainant was the type of startling event that would cause “physical shock or trauma” … . Further, the 911 calls were made only approximately five minutes after the event, and in those intervening minutes, the complainant ran across the street from the scene of the incident to his apartment to bandage his wound. Under these circumstances, this short interval of time did not “detract[ ] from [the] spontaneity” of the statements … . People v Jaber, 2019 NY Slip Op 03988, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO PARKED UNOCCUPIED CARS, SMELL OF MARIHUANA (FROM OUTSIDE THE CLOSED UNOCCUPIED CAR) PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE CAR, OFFICER’S SUBJECTIVE INTENT TO SEARCH THE CAR BEFORE HE SMELLED THE MARIHUANA IS IRRELEVANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the warrantless search of defendant’s car, which was parked outside the apartment where defendant had been arrested, was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The officer who opened the car door with keys taken from the defendant, testified that he smelled marihuana as he approached the car, and that he intended to search the car before he smelled the marijuana. The Third Department held that the officer’s subjective intent to search before he smelled the marihuana did not invalidate the search, and the officer’s claim he could smell marihuana outside a closed car was a credibility issue resolved by County Court:

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement is not based solely upon the mobility of vehicles, but also on the “reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile” … . Thus, the automobile exception is not limited to vehicles that are moving or occupied when observed by police and may also be applied when, as here, a vehicle is parked in “a public place where access [is] not meaningfully restricted” … . …

The warrantless search was permissible under the automobile exception. “[I]t is well established that the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle” … . …

… [P]robable cause analysis is based upon reasonableness, and a search or seizure is permissible where, as here, “the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action” … . As the smell of marihuana outside the vehicle objectively provided probable cause for the warrantless search, the lieutenant’s subjective intentions are irrelevant. People v Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 03853, Third Dept 5-16-19

 

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