You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE JUDGE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE MANDATORY “SEARCHING INQUIRY;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s request to proceed pro se was summarily denied without the required “searching inquiry:”

It is well established that a defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to proceed pro se provided that “(1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … . Here, the record establishes that defendant requested to represent himself before the start of trial, stating: “I would like to go pro se, and I would like to bring something to the [c]ourt’s attention if I may, your Honor.” The court initially ignored the request, but defense counsel raised the issue twice more, causing the court to tell defendant: “We are not going to address the issue of pro se. You are here with [defense counsel],” whom the court described as “one of the most experienced defense attorneys in town.” Given that the court “recognized defendant as having unequivocally requested to proceed pro se,” it was then required to conduct a “searching inquiry to ensure that . . . defendant’s waiver [of the right to counsel was] knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” … . People v Taylor, 2025 NY Slip Op 02473, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Once a judge recognizes a defendant has unequivocally requested to represent himself, the judge is required to make a “searching inquiry” to ensure defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The failure to conduct the inquiry requires reversal.

 

, ,

HERE THE EVIDENCE WAS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial on the murder and attempted murder charges, determined the judge should have given the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction:

“[A] trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant’s guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence . . . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, such a charge need not be given” … .

The People argue that certain statements made by defendant provided some direct evidence of defendant’s guilt of those charges. A defendant’s “statement[s are] direct evidence only if [they] constitute a relevant admission of guilt” … . Here, we conclude that the statements identified by the People were not admissions of guilt; rather, because they “merely includ[ed] inculpatory acts from which a jury may or may not infer guilt, the statement[s were] circumstantial and not direct evidence” … . The People thus failed to present ” ‘both direct and circumstantial evidence of . . . defendant’s guilt’ ” that would have negated the need for a circumstantial evidence charge … . People v Rodriguez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02454, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Where the evidence against a defendant is both circumstantial and direct, a request for a circumstantial-evidence jury instruction is properly denied. Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, the request must be granted.​

Practice Point: A defendant’s statements are direct evidence only if they constitute an admission of guilt. Where, as here, the statements include inculpatory acts from which guilt can be inferred the statements constitute circumstantial evidence.

 

,

ALTHOUGH ALL JUSTICES AGREED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ILLUSORY, THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE NAMES OF WITNESSES CAPTURED ON A VIDEO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the People’s certificate of compliance (COC) was not illusory and, therefore, the speedy trial statute was not violated. The concurrence agreed the COC was not illusory, but argued the People should have ascertained and turned over the names of witnesses which were depicted in a video:

… [W]ith respect to defendant’s claim that the People failed to turn over the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested, CPL 245.20 (1) (c) provides in relevant part that the People are required to disclose “[t]he names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto.” The People are not, however, required “to ascertain the existence of witnesses not known to the police or another law enforcement agency” … . The record shows that the People did not know or have in their possession the names of those witnesses with the exception of one witness whose name they learned just prior to the scheduled trial. The court thus properly determined that the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to ascertain the existence of the discovery materials … .

From the concurrence (Justice Whalen):

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the People had no obligation to make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested. Although the People are not required to “ascertain the existence of witnesses” not known to law enforcement … , here the record establishes that, at the time their discovery obligation under CPL article 245 arose, the People possessed knowledge that several of the witnesses depicted on the surveillance footage had “evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … . Specifically, the People possessed the statements of the store owner and the victim, as well as the police report from the arresting officer, each of which reflects that just prior to defendant’s arrest, the depicted store employees tackled defendant to the ground, locked the door, and waited for police to arrive. Inasmuch as there is no plausible argument that the store employees who held defendant down after an attempted robbery did not “have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … , the People were obligated to “make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain” … the “names and adequate contact information for [those] persons” … . In my opinion, the majority, in concluding otherwise, is conflating the statutory requirement that the People possess knowledge of the “existence of witnesses” … with knowledge of the names of witnesses. People v Burrows, 2025 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The concurrence argued the majority conflated the fact that the People need not ascertain the existence of witnesses they are not aware of with the obligation to ascertain the names of witnesses of which the People are aware.

 

, , , , , ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS “NEGLIGENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE,” “FALSE ARREST,” AND “UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT” ACTION STEMMING FROM THE STREET STOP, SHOOTING AND ARREST OF THE PLAINTIFF; THE DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment in this civil action stemming from the street stop and arrest of the plaintiff. Although plaintiff pled guilty, which usually forecloses any argument that the arrest was not supported by probable cause, here evidence submitted the defendant transit authority raised a question of fact about probable cause. The action alleged the negligent use of excessive force (plaintiff was shot through the windshield of his vehicle), false arrest and unlawful imprisonment:

Excessive force claims are evaluated ” ‘under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard’ ” … . * * *

“Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” … .

” ‘The fact that a person whom a police officer attempts to arrest resists, threatens, or assaults the officer no doubt justifies the officer’s use of some degree of force, but it does not give the officer license to use force without limit. The force used by the officer must be reasonably related to the nature of the resistance and the force used, threatened, or reasonably perceived to be threatened, against the officer’ ” … . …

Though “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the [false imprisonment cause of action]” … , the issue of probable cause is “generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury, and should ‘be decided by the court only where there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn surrounding the arrest’ ” … . Thomas v Niagara Frontier Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02433, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an analysis of “negligent use of excessive force,” “false arrest,” and “unlawful imprisonment” causes of action at the summary-judgment stage, in the face of conflicting evidence.​

 

, , , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COURT SHOULD USE ITS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE EMPLOYED SPARINGLY, FACTORS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring decision and an extensive dissent, determined the juvenile delinquency petition should be dismissed in the interest of justice. The concurrence argued the dismissal should be based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The dissent argued this difficult situation was properly handled:

Although we are mindful that “[d]ismissal in the furtherance of justice is an extraordinary remedy that must be employed sparingly,” it is our opinion that this is one of “those rare cases where there [are] compelling factor[s] which clearly demonstrate[ ] that prosecution [resulted in an] injustice” .. . … [A]ttempted assault in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor, is not serious … . … [T]he DSS caseworker was not seriously injured. * * * … [A]t the time of the attempted assault, respondent was in DSS’ care and custody because her mother was deceased and her grandmother, who subsequently adopted respondent, ultimately surrendered her rights. Respondent has a reportedly low IQ and a history of mental illness which was so severe that Family Court ordered a capacity evaluation … . Indeed, respondent had been brought to the hospital emergency room based on what was legally designed to be a temporary Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 hold. Respondent remained in what was essentially a lock and key detention in the hospital, mostly in the emergency room, under dubious circumstances for an outrageous period of six months.

… Respondent already had numerous strikes against her, not only her lack of a parent/guardian and her serious mental health challenges, but also a previous juvenile delinquency adjudication. This additional juvenile delinquency finding is a red flag that will undoubtedly hinder opportunities and could cause difficulty for respondent should she seek mental health assistance in the future. Simply put, respondent needs no additional baggage, especially not baggage stemming from a juvenile delinquency petition that was admittedly filed and continued because of the difficulty of placing her in a suitable setting … . Matter of A. WW., 2025 NY Slip Op 02377, Third Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed analysis of an appellate court’s authority under the Family Court Act to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition “in the interest of justice.”

 

, , , , , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS NOTIFIED OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT HEARING AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT; LEVEL-THREE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant waived his right to be present at the virtual SORA risk-assessment hearing. The judge relied on an email from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision stating that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court,” which was not sufficient proof defendant was notified of the hearing and his rights and voluntarily waived his rights. Although defense counsel did not object, the issue did not require preservation for appeal because the defendant had “no practical ability to object” to the due process error:

The record does not establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, the right to be present or of the consequences of failing to appear and/or participate. County Court’s passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been “served” and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had “expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing” … .

Although the People submitted a July 19, 2022 email correspondence indicating that an order to produce defendant for the SORA hearing was sent by County Court to the facility where defendant was apparently incarcerated, the responsive email from a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee stated only that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” for the SORA hearing, which was insufficient to establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, his right to participate remotely or the consequences of failing to appear or participate. As such, the record fails to establish that defendant voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing, where County Court may have had the opportunity to assess any cognitive impairment and its impact, if any, on the appropriate risk level classification. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the appropriate risk level, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, preceded by the required notice (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). People v Santiago, 2025 NY Slip Op 02381, Thrid Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Here an email from the Department of Corrections stating defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” was deemed insufficient to prove defendant was notified of the SORA risk-level-assessment hearing and voluntarily waived his right to be present, a due process violation.

Practice Point: Although defense counsel did not object to the hearing being held in defendant’s absence, the issue need not be preserved for appeal because defendant had “no practical ability to object.”

 

, ,

ONLY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING THE GRAND JURY CAN ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES; IN ORANGE COUNTY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING GRAND JURIES IS COUNTY COURT; THEREFORE THE PETITON FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FROM ORDERING THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit a Supreme Court justice from ordering the release of grand jury minutes to the plaintiff in a civil action. Only the court charged with empaneling the grand jury, in this case County Court, can order release of the minutes:

The orders … directing the release of certain grand jury minutes in the subject criminal action and directing the clerk of the court to provide those minutes to the plaintiff’s counsel in the underlying civil action, are subject to prohibition for exceeding the Supreme Court’s authorized powers, as “only the court in charge of a Grand Jury may release testimony from the secrecy requirements of CPL 190.25(4)” … . In Orange County, only terms of the County Court have been charged with the empaneling of grand juries at the times relevant to this proceeding … , and as such, that was the court in charge of the grand jury in the subject criminal action, and the only court authorized to release those grand jury minutes … . Matter of Hoovler v Vazquez-Doles, 2025 NY Slip Op 02204, Secpmd Dept 5-16-25

Practice Point: If a Supreme Court justice issues an order which exceeds that court’s authorized powers, here an an order to release grand jury minutes to a plaintiff in a civil action, a petition for a writ of prohibition will be granted.

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS; THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM CONVICTION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the criminal possession of a firearm conviction, determined criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts:

CPL 300.30(4) provides that “[c]oncurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” … . CPL 300.40(3)(b) provides, in relevant part, that with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Here, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law §§ 265.03[1][b]; 265.01-b[1]). Because the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the charge of criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Walker, 2025 NY Slip Op 02225, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts requiring vacation of the criminal possession of a firearm conviction.

 

,

UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the appellate division, determined the police were justified in pursuing the defendant after a level three street stop, even though, at the time of the pursuit, the initial reason for the stop, an apparent impending attack on a pedestrian, had dissipated:

We have previously held that an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1993]; People v May, 81 NY2d 725, 728 [1992]; see generally People v De Bour 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). We now hold that when a suspect flees during a lawful level three stop founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police may pursue the suspect.

… At the suppression hearing, Officer Kyle Eisenhauer of the Rochester Police Department testified that, on the night of the arrest, he was in uniform in an unmarked patrol vehicle with his partner, Officer Jeremy Nellist. The two were driving behind a sedan when a woman on the sidewalk threw a glass bottle at the sedan, which then came to a stop in the middle of the street. Defendant exited the driver’s door of the sedan and “in a very aggressive manner” began yelling at the woman and approached her with clenched fists. According to Eisenhauer, “[i]t appeared [that defendant] was . . . about to attack” the woman. Eisenhauer and Nellist exited their patrol car and told defendant to stop, and defendant “stopped and looked in [their] direction.” The uniformed officers were about 25 feet away from defendant without their guns drawn. Defendant “began to back away, and then quickly turned and began digging in the front of his waistband and running” away from the officers, leaving his car in the middle of the street with the driver’s door open. The officers followed in pursuit. * * *

We reject the notion that a suspect can legally flee a level three stop so long as their flight dissipates the reasonable suspicion of the crime that initially gave rise to the stop. People v Cleveland, 2025 NY Slip Op 02144, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: If the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time of a level three street stop, they may pursue the fleeing suspect, even if the initial reason for the stop (here an apparent impending assault) is dissipated by the flight. In contrast, flight from a level one or level two street stop does not justify pursuit.

 

,

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY FOURTH AND FIFTH DEGREE ARE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the criminal possession of stolen property fourth and fifth degree convictions should have been vacated as lesser included offenses of criminal possession of stolen property third degree. The court noted that unauthorized use of a vehicle is not a lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property because the criminal-possession statute does not require possession of a motor vehicle:

“When it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, another offense of lesser grade or degree, the latter is, with respect to the former, a ‘lesser included offense'” (CPL 1.20[37]). However, appellant’s argument that unauthorized use of a vehicle is a lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property is incorrect. It is possible to criminally possess stolen property without also committing, by the same conduct, the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle, because the criminal possession statute does not require possession of a motor vehicle as the other statute does … . Matter of D.P. 2025 NY Slip Op 02132 First Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what is, and what is not, a lesser included offense.​

 

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