You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ALTHOUGH THE CONVICTIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the evidence was legally sufficient but the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

People’s accomplice theory supporting counts 2 through 7 against defendant was that the video surveillance footage depicted the gun being handed off before the shooting. However, the video footage is dark and pixelated, and the brother’s body obscures part of the interaction, making it impossible to discern whether defendant and the codefendant exchanged a handgun — let alone anything — without resorting to speculation, which cannot be the basis for defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that this codefendant was aware that defendant had a gun, as none of the witnesses testified that he was present when defendant had displayed the gun at the mother’s residence. To this point, the codefendant’s lack of knowledge combined with the testimony that he threatened to return and shoot the victim creates the reasonable inference that he already had access to a gun of his own. Accordingly, given the lack of record support to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided another individual to possess and use a firearm in commission of the offenses charged under counts 2 through 7, we reverse these convictions as against the weight of the evidence … .

Relating to the weapon charges under counts 8 and 9, multiple witnesses testified that defendant was seen with a handgun only while at the mother’s residence. However, since the evidence fails to demonstrate that the shooting was committed with the same gun, it so follows that the record also fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to use the gun he was seen with “unlawfully against another” as charged by the indictment (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]). Further, although defendant did not possess the requisite gun permit and was outside of his home or place of business, the People cannot establish operability of the handgun that defendant was seen with at the mother’s residence before the shooting either … . People v Bowden, 2026 NY Slip Op 02003, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of convictions supported by legally sufficient evidence but against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

AN ANONYMOUS RADIO TRANSMISSION PROVIDED THE COLOR, MAKE, LOCATION AND LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF A CAR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARJACKED; THE POLICE OFFICERS FORCIBLY STOPPED THE CAR BEFORE VERIFYING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” AT THE TIME OF THE STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forcible stop of the vehicle defendant was driving was not supported by “reasonable suspicion.” The stop was based upon an anonymous radio transmission. The transmission provided the color, make, license plate number and location of a vehicle which had been carjacked. The police saw a vehicle matching the description in a parking lot but did not verify the license plate number until after the forcible stop:

… [T]he arresting officer testified that at approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 30, 2016, he and his partner received a radio transmission that a black Toyota with Pennsylvania license plate JCS1537 had been carjacked, the car was being tracked in real time, and its current location was near West 165th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan. No evidence was presented as to the basis for the transmission or how the vehicle was being tracked. The officers responded to that location and saw a man standing by the trunk of a black Toyota with his hands by his waist in an open-air parking lot. A parking lot attendant confirmed that a black Toyota with Pennsylvania license plate had recently entered the lot. The officers then saw the black Toyota trying to exit. The officer stopped the car by drawing his gun, putting his hand up, and telling it to stop. The officer noticed that the Toyota had no front plate, which was not required in Pennsylvania, and a parking receipt on the windshield for the same license plate number as the stolen vehicle. * * *

The police officer’s testimony failed to provide any information that would have corroborated the anonymous radio transmission. Without knowing the source or nature of the tip with respect to either the carjacking report or the real-time tracking, the forcible stop was not justified by a reasonable suspicion … . The testimony that defendant was standing near the trunk of a black Toyota in a parking lot was not corroborative since such conduct was neither unlawful nor suspicious. The officer’s testimony indicated that he only noticed the lack of the front license plate and parking receipt reflecting a matching license number with the carjacked vehicle after he had already forcibly stopped defendant. Thus, this corroborating information cannot justify the officer’s actions … . People v Martinez-Jaquez, 2026 NY Slip Op 02045, First Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the corroboration required before the police can act on an anonymous tip.

 

,

SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUPPRESSION MOTIONS REVERSED IN THIS TRAFFIC STOP CASE; THE REPORT THAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ARMED ROBBERY THAT DAY AND THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK OF COOPERATION AT THE TIME OF THE STOP JUSTIFIED BREAKING THE VEHICLE’S WINDOWS, REMOVING THE DEFENDANTS AND HANDCUFFING THEM; OBSERVING A FIREARM IN THE VEHICLE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s suppression of evidence seized during a traffic stop, over a dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and exigent circumstances justified the search of a defendant’s fanny pack. The dissent disagreed about the legitimacy of the search of the fanny pack:

… [T]he police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based upon the fact that the description of the vehicle matched that of a vehicle that had been involved in an armed robbery earlier that day, and the vehicle’s location had been detected by a license plate reader approximately five minutes prior to the stop … . Moreover, the actions of the police officers in drawing their guns and ordering the defendants out of the vehicle were justified under the circumstances as appropriate measures to ensure their safety … . Additionally, when the defendants failed to cooperate with the officers’ instructions, the officers acted appropriately in breaking the vehicle’s “excessive[ly] . . . tint[ed]” front windows for their own safety and then in removing the defendants from the vehicle and placing them in handcuffs … . The police thereafter had probable cause to arrest the defendants once the officer observed a firearm in plain view in the compartment of the driver’s side door of the vehicle … .

… [T]he subsequent search of Rivera’s fanny pack was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest … . * * *

“Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements” … . “The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is ‘not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest'” … . “The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . …

… The police were notified that a vehicle matching the description of the subject vehicle was involved earlier the same day in a gunpoint robbery in Brooklyn. … [A]fter the vehicle was boxed in by police vehicles, the occupants tried to escape the scene in the vehicle and continually refused the officer’s directives to lower the heavily tinted car windows or exit the vehicle. People v David, 2026 NY Slip Op 01980, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court granted defendants’ suppression motions and the Appellate Division reversed finding (1) the guns-drawn traffic stop, (2) the breaking of the vehicle’s windows, (3) the removal of defendants from the vehicle, (4) the handcuffing of the defendants, and (5) the arrest of the defendants upon observing a firearm in the vehicle, were constitutionally justified.

 

,

THE POLICE OBSERVED A GROUP OF PEOPLE CHASING THE DEFENDANT AND ESSENTIALLY JOINED IN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES; THE WEAPON SEIZED IN THE STREET STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction (after trial) and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who participated in the foot chase and street stop of the defendant did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion.” The police (in civilian clothes) saw a group of people chasing the defendant and essentially simply joined in the chase without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. The seized firearm should have been suppressed:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the pursuit of the defendant, as the police lacked reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . Neither Hain’s [the officer’s] observation of the defendant running away from a “group of civilians” chasing him, nor the female voice saying “that’s him, he’s getting away, grab him,” without reference to any specific acts, were sufficient to confer reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to the defendant being the victim of criminal activity or having no connection to any criminal activity … . Hain acknowledged that “I wasn’t sure exactly what was going on at the time,” and that the group could have been chasing the defendant “for anything.” Further, Hain’s vague testimony that when the group caught up to the defendant, he observed the defendant and a female individual “engaged in some sort of physical altercation,” which he described as “tussling, pulling back and forth at each other,” was insufficient, absent any details, to satisfy the People’s burden of establishing reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Hain acknowledged that “I don’t know if [the defendant] was defending himself,” and he did not testify that the defendant ever struck the female individual or engaged in any conduct constituting an assault or other criminal activity. Therefore, it cannot be determined from Hain’s testimony elicited at the hearing whether the defendant was merely trying to pull away from the female individual to continue running away after she and the group caught up to him.

Thus, Hain’s observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Alberto, 2026 NY Slip Op 01976, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Here the police saw a group of people chasing the defendant and joined in without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. Therefore the street stop was not justified by “reasonable suspicion.”

 

, ,

AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CONFESSING TO THE MURDER FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the statement against penal interest made by a witness in a post-trial CPL article 440 hearing should have been admitted at trial. The witness essentially confessed to the shooting for which defendant was convicted. At the time of the trial, the witness was unavailable because he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge excluded the statement against penal interest on the ground that circumstances independent of the statement itself did not support the statement’s truthfulness and reliability :

… [W]e conclude, based on the circumstances of the witness’s CPL article 440 testimony and the trial record, from which that testimony was absent, that “there is ‘a reasonable possibility that the [testimony] might be true’ ” … . Initially, the witness’s description of the third party shooting at the window from the backyard when the light went on is consistent with the female victim’s testimony that she was shot immediately after she turned on the light and the physical evidence that the shots were fired through the rear window. The witness testified that the third party picked up a .38 firearm, which is consistent with the projectiles recovered from the shooting, from a nearby location just prior to the shooting. The witness’s description of running down the driveway with the third party immediately following the shots, across the street, and then over a backyard fence coincides with a female neighbor’s description in her trial testimony of two men jumping over her back fence. The testimony of a law enforcement witness also corroborated the witness’s account of the two prior robberies described by the witness during his CPL article 440 testimony. Further, there is no evidence that the witness had a familial or close relationship with defendant or other “obvious motive for [the witness] to falsely implicate himself” … .

In light of the more lenient standard applied to exculpatory statements, we conclude that the initial threshold of reliability is met, i.e., that there is a “reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01881, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for admission of a statement against penal interest.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS 33 YEARS OLD AND THE JURY OBSERVED HIM, THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVE HE WAS OVER 18 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIMES REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS; THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual act first degree, determined that, although defendant was in fact 33 years old, the People failed to prove that he was over 18 at the time of the crimes. The errors was not preserved. The appellate court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to consider the issue:

Here, two counts in the indictment include an age element that required the People to establish that defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the crimes in June 2020 … . Defendant was in fact 33 years old in June 2020, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during the trial in 2021, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of predatory sexual assault against a child under count 1 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the first degree under count 5 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: If being over 18 at the time of the crime is an element of the offense, the People must prove that element. Here the defendant was 33, but the failure to prove he was over 18 was reversible error. This error will be considered by an appellate court even where it has not been preserved for appeal.​

 

,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS UNILATERALLY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have allowed the defendant and the codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges to jurors unilaterally:

… County Court erred in permitting the codefendant to unilaterally exercise peremptory challenges. … The court’s process of allowing defendant and codefendant to each unilaterally exercise their shared peremptory challenges was in violation of CPL 270.25 former (3) and resulted in defendant and codefendant exhausting their shared peremptory challenges before all jurors were selected … . A court’s mistaken denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal” … . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01874, Fourth Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: The court should not have allowed defendant and codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges unilaterally.​

 

PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, overruling precedent, determined that the knowledge element of Penal Law 220.16(1) (criminal possession of a controlled substance) requires only that a defendant know that the substance is a “narcotic drug” and does not require knowledge that the substance is a specific drug. Therefore Penal Law 220.16(1) is equivalent to 21 USC 841(1)(a) and defendant can be sentenced as a second felony offender based on the prior federal conviction:

… Penal Law § 220.39(1) … [states that] a person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree “when he knowingly and unlawfully sells . . . a narcotic drug.” We now hold that the “nature” of the substance possessed under Penal Law § 220.39(1), and under Penal Law § 220.16(1), the statute at issue in the instance case, is, in accordance with the statutory language, “a narcotic drug.” Knowledge of the particular drug possessed is not required. This definition also aligns the knowledge requirement with other decisions of this Court. For example, in People v Martin (153 AD2d 807, 808 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]), we held, in a different context, that “Penal Law § 220.16(1) does not distinguish between the types of narcotics possessed, but treats all drugs classified as narcotics interchangeably.”

Under the correct definition of the nature of the substance possessed, defendant’s federal conviction and Penal Law § 220.16(1) are strictly equivalent. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01857, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Here the First Department overruled precedent which held that the knowledge element of drug-possession charges required knowledge of the specific drug involved. Because the knowledge element requires only that a defendant know the possessed substance is a “narcotic drug,” Penal Law 220.16(1) is strictly equivalent to the federal statute 21 USC 841(1)(a) for purposes of a second felony offender adjudication.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE EVEN A “MINIMAL INQUIRY” WHEN DEFENDANT STATED HE WANTED ANOTHER ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT DID NOT ABANDON THE ISSUE BY NOT RAISING IT AGAIN WHEN HE PLED GUILTY; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rodriguez, over a dissenting opinion, determined defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain his request for a new attorney. Defendant attempted to raise the issue at an early court appearance, but the judge made no inquiry. Subsequently, without raising the issue again, defendant pled guilty while represented by the same attorney:

“Where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request for reassignment of counsel, the court must make at least a ‘minimal inquiry’ as to ‘the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution’ ” … . Generally, to trigger the “minimal inquiry” requirement, the defendant must provide specific factual allegations … .

However, the “minimal inquiry” requirement presumes a fair opportunity to be heard. The law, in other words, does not permit the court to satisfy its obligations in this area by refusing the defendant an opportunity to record a potentially serious request. Thus, if the court denies the defendant’s “request for substitution of counsel without conducting any inquiry whatsoever, and without permitting defendant to explain, either orally or in writing, why such an inquiry might be necessary,” the defendant’s conviction should be vacated … .

Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s application without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard. Specifically, when defendant first asked to speak, the court ignored him altogether. When defendant made a second attempt, the court refused to permit him to address the issue and instead instructed him to “[t]alk to [his] lawyer.” As the People acknowledge, defendant had to interrupt the proceeding on his third attempt to communicate even his most elemental “need [for] a new attorney.” People v Dinkins, 2026 NY Slip Op 01742, First Dept 3-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the inquiry which must be made by a judge when a defendant requests a new attorney.

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department. suppressing evidence seized upon defendant’s arrest and dismissing the indictment. over a two-justice dissent, determined that the police did not have particularized information which justified approaching defendant’s car which was parked near an apartment complex. There was a “trespass affidavit” by an apartment property manager on file with the police department which requested that any person who was not a tenant be arrested for trespass. The police approached defendant, who, it turned out, was a tenant. But based on an officer’s observation of a bag containing a tan substance inside the car, the officers ordered defendant out the car, searched the defendant’s person and car, and seized cocaine and a handgun:

… [T]he officer’s testimony that the apartment complex was in a high-crime area did not justify approaching defendant. The trespass affidavit failed to afford the officers any more particularized reason for approaching defendant. Therein, although the property manager for the apartment complex stated generally that there “was reason to believe that persons are congregating on the . . . property . . . [who] do not reside at said property,” there was no allegation in the trespass affidavit that the property was, for example, “plagued by illegal drug trade” or gang violence … . Indeed, the property manager did not specify any prior or ongoing incidents of criminal activity on the premises, but instead expressed a general belief that persons might be “congregating on the property,” which is a multi-building residential apartment complex, “without [the property manager’s] permission.” The property manager nonetheless also acknowledged in the trespass affidavit that non-residents were often permissibly on the property, such as guests of tenants. Thus, defendant was not “parked at an establishment around which criminal activity was known to occur” … . Further, the officers observed defendant momentary idling in a vehicle in a publicly accessible parking lot on a summer evening outside a residential apartment complex … , not “in a private space restricted by signage and a lock” … . Thus, nothing in the officers’ observation of defendant’s conduct, even considered in light of the assertions in the trespass affidavit, “provided a particularized reason to request information” … . People v Robinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01693, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: Here the police did not have a “particularized reason” for approaching defendant’s parked car near an apartment complex. The facts that (1) the defendant was parked in a high crime area and (2) an apartment-complex property manager had filed a “trespass affidavit” with the police was not enough to allow the police to approach the defendant to request information.

 

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