You are here: / Criminal Law

DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, who had just turned 14 at the time of the robbery, should have been adjudicated a youthful offender. The defendant had been placed in a program called “Project Redirect” which, had he successfully completed it, would have resulted in dismissal of the felony. Defendant, however, did not successfully complete the program:

“The youthful offender provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths . . . with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals” … . Here, the evidence before the court showed that the defendant participated with a group of other youths in a single robbery at an age when he was barely capable of being held criminally responsible for his conduct (see Penal Law § 30.00). Although the defendant did not fully comply with the requirements of the “Project Redirect” program, there is no indication in the record that he is incapable of rehabilitation. Indeed, no further criminal conduct was alleged during that time. Under these circumstances, in view of the defendant’s tender years, background, and lack of juvenile or criminal record, the interest of justice would be served by relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record … . People v Darius B., 2016 NY Slip Op 08371, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

CRIMINAL LAWDEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)

 

, , ,

SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that fraud-related actions against defendant Credit Suisse (stemming from the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS]) were governed by the six-year, not three-year statute of limitations. The actions were brought pursuant to the Martin Act and Executive Law 63(12). Those statutes were deemed to have codified common law causes of action. Therefore the six-year statute (CPLR 213), not the three-year statute (CPLR 214) applies:

Where claims are “to recover upon a liability . . . created or imposed by statute” (CPLR 214[2]), and the liability, although akin to common-law causes, “would not exist but for [the] statute” … , the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(2) applies … . In contrast, where a statute “merely codifies and affords new remedies for what in essence is a common-law … claim[,]” CPLR 214(2) does not apply and “the Statute of Limitations for the statutory claim is that for the common-law cause of action which the statute codified or implemented”(id. at 208).

In the complaint, the Attorney General alleges, inter alia, that defendants’ fraud was their failure to abide by their representations that they had carefully evaluated and would continue to monitor the quality of the loans underlying their RMBS, and that they would encourage loan originators to implement sound origination practices. Instead, defendants routinely ignored defects discovered in their due diligence reviews and did not seek to influence originators to utilize appropriate origination practices, choosing instead to misuse their quality control process to obtain significant monetary settlements from originators, which defendants improperly kept for themselves. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08339, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/FRAUD (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/CRIMINAL LAW (SECURITIES FRAUD, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/MARTIN ACT (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/STATUTE OF LIMITATION (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63),RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)

, ,

STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined that a statement by an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call, was properly admitted as an excited utterance. The court noted that another judge, who became ill, had ruled the statement inadmissible. Because it was an evidentiary ruling, it was not subject to the law of the case doctrine:

The court providently admitted, as an excited utterance, the statement of an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call made by one of the victims, that implicated defendant. All of the circumstances — most significantly that the statement was made immediately after the shooting — established a strong likelihood that the declarant observed the shooting … .

Although a contrary ruling on the excited utterance issue had been made by a previous judge, who presided over part of jury selection but was unable to continue because of illness, this circumstance did not foreclose the successor judge’s ruling by operation of the law of the case doctrine. The ruling was evidentiary and did not fall within the ambit of that doctrine (see People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499 [2000]). Defendant does not dispute that this was the type of ruling that, under Evans , may be revisited by a successor judge in a retrial. We see no reason to apply a different rule where there are successive judges in the same trial … . People v Cummings, 2016 NY Slip Op 08298, 1st Dept 12-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EXCITED UTTERANCE  (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/HEARSAY (EXCITED UTTERANCE, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)

,

TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the probation violation petition gave sufficient notice of the charges and a woman (Nichols) who had been convicted of misdemeanor DWI was a “convicted criminal” within the meaning of a condition of probation (prohibiting association with convicted criminals). The court held that it was not necessary to prove petitioner knew of the DWI conviction. The probationer apparently went to the Nichol’s apartment for the purpose of taking a dog for a walk. The dissent argued that simply taking a dog for a walk  was not “contact” or “association” with a convicted criminal:

Special condition No. 17 required defendant to refrain from associating with “convicted criminals” — as opposed to “known criminals.” Accordingly, defendant cannot avoid a violation of the subject condition simply by claiming either that he did not know that a particular individual had been convicted of a crime or that he believed that said individual was guilty of only a traffic violation. …

With respect to the issue of whether defendant “associate[d]” with Nichols within the meaning of special condition No. 17, the testimony at the hearing further demonstrated that, on approximately four occasions … , defendant called either Nichols or her daughter and thereafter went to Nichols’ apartment for the purpose of picking up and walking the dog that defendant and Nichols once shared. Notably, Nichols confirmed that she spoke with defendant, with whom she remained friends, on the telephone to make arrangements regarding the dog and testified that she personally exchanged the dog with defendant “[a]bout four times,” stating, “I would hand him the dog and he would take the dog and go down the street.” People v Kislowski, 2016 NY Slip Op 08261, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)/PROBATION (VIOLATION, TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY WHEN THE JUROR EXPRESSED DOUBT SHE COULD BE FAIR.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defense counsel’s “for cause” challenge to a juror (Ms. J) should have been granted. Two of the juror’s siblings had been the victims of serious crimes. Although the juror, at one point, indicated she could be fair, she subsequently expressed doubt and the trial judge did not make any further inquiry at that point:

 

While it is true that the trial judge in this case asked Ms. J. on October 5, 2011 whether the crimes suffered by her siblings would affect her ability to be fair, the judge did not repeat this inquiry the next day when Ms. J. repeated her belief that her siblings’ experience might affect her ability to be fair. Defense counsel’s general inquiry into whether Ms. J. would have difficulty returning a not guilty verdict if she had a reasonable doubt was insufficient to elicit an unequivocal assurance of her impartiality, as this questioning failed to confront the very issue she had raised: that her siblings’ experiences would affect her, thus making it less likely that she might have any reasonable doubt. Just as defense counsel’s venire-wide inquiry in Arnold did not directly address a prospective juror’s personal bias, in this case, defense counsel’s general inquiry about reasonable doubt did not directly address the concerns of bias raised by Ms. J. on October 6, 2011.

…[W]e [also] find that the totality of Ms. J.’s responses did not indicate that she could set aside what happened to her brother and sister. People v Small, 2016 NY Slip Op 08293, 1st Dept 12-8-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY WHEN THE JUROR EXPRESSED DOUBT SHE COULD BE FAIR)/JURORS (CRIMINAL, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY WHEN THE JUROR EXPRESSED DOUBT SHE COULD BE FAIR)

 

, ,

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the defendant was aware of the victim’s age when establishing the relationship for sexual purposes. The victim indicated she was 18 in her online profile:

… [I]n enacting SORA, the Legislature expressly stated that it was especially concerned with “predatory acts”: “[t]he legislature finds that the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders, especially those sexually violent offenders who commit predatory acts characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, and . . . the protection of the public from these offenders, is of paramount concern or interest to the government” … . This language convinces us that “for the primary purpose of victimization,” as used in risk factor 7 and relevant to this case, requires proof that the defendant knew when establishing or promoting the relationship for sexual purposes that the victim was underage. In cases where the SORA offense is a crime because of the victim’s age, risk factor 7 does not apply to offenders who may have established the relationship for sexual purposes, but without having reason to know the victim’s age at that time … . People v Jordan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08212, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)

, ,

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING.

The Second Department determined the SORA court properly considered grand jury testimony in assessing the risk level:

The defendant argues that the People’s disclosure of grand jury minutes in this case violated CPL 190.25(4), citing Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County (58 NY2d 436, 444, 446), which ruled that grand jury minutes cannot be disclosed in a civil proceeding without a demonstration of a “compelling and particularized need” and that it is “impossible” to make a case without the grand jury minutes. However, this argument has been uniformly rejected by the courts … . Correction Law § 168-n(3) states that the court in a SORA proceeding “shall review any victim’s statement,” which includes a victim’s testimony before the grand jury … . Grand jury testimony constitutes reliable hearsay that is sufficient for SORA purposes … . Where grand jury testimony is “undermined by other more compelling evidence,” it need not be credited unless corroborated by other evidence … . However, in this case, no conflicting evidence was submitted. People v Harmon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08210, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/EVIDENCE (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRAION ACT (SORA) (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)

GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED.

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction because the guilty plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise:

In June 2013, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant was advised that if he failed to complete a Mental Health Court program, the court would sentence him to a term of imprisonment on his plea of guilty to attempted assault in the second degree, and that his plea of guilty to assault in the third degree would be vacated. The defendant did not successfully complete the program. At sentencing, however, instead of vacating the defendant’s plea of guilty to assault in the third degree, the County Court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment upon that plea, to run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed on his conviction of attempted assault in the second degree.

“[A] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored”… .  People v Rohan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08251, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED)/SENTENCING (GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED)

,

THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

The First Department determined defendant was not deprived of his right to call his codefendant as a witness. Although he strongly expressed his wish to do so, defense counsel properly exercised professional judgment in deciding against calling the witness:

“If defense counsel solely defers to a defendant, without exercising his or her professional judgment, on a decision that is for the attorney, not the accused, to make because it is not fundamental, the defendant is deprived of the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him or her” … . Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel … . Moreover, counsel had a sound reason for not calling the codefendant, who, in his plea allocution, had implicated defendant in the drug sale. To the extent defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is likewise without merit … . People v Sheard, 2016 NY Slip Op 08186, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to hearing on his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged he was erroneously told he would not be deported if he pled guilty to a drug sale, but could be deported if convicted after trial:

This case presents factual issues requiring a hearing into whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel under People v McDonald (1 NY3d 109 [2003]) by way of erroneous and prejudicial immigration advice. Defendant alleges that his attorney erroneously advised him that if he pleaded guilty to a drug sale count with a sentence of probation, he would not be subject to deportation, but if he refused the plea offer, proceeded to trial and lost, he would go to prison and then be deported. Defendant’s claim is corroborated, to some extent, by statements made to present counsel by the attorney who represented defendant at the time of the plea … . The standard “no other promises” disclaimer in defendant’s plea allocution does not, as a matter of law, defeat his claim of erroneous legal advice. This case warrants a hearing at which defendant may establish the advice he actually received regarding the deportation consequences of his plea. …

This case also warrants a hearing on the prejudice prong of defendant’s claim. Defendant made a sufficient showing to raise an issue of fact as to whether he could have rationally rejected the plea offer under all the circumstances of the case, including the serious consequences of deportation and his incentive to remain in the United States … . Further, defendant sufficiently alleges that if immigration consequences had been factored into the plea bargaining process, counsel might have been able to negotiate a different plea agreement that would not have resulted in automatic deportation. People v Santos, 2016 NY Slip Op 08169, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/INEFFECTICE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)

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