You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

BEFORE HEARSAY CAN BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and remitting the SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined County Court should not have relied on hearsay to prove that the adult in a photograph depicting sexual activity between an adult and a child was the defendant. The case was remitted to allow the People the opportunity to establish a foundation for the reliability of the hearsay:

In assessing defendant 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim, County Court relied upon a contested statement in the case summary made by an assistant district attorney to the author of the case summary. The assistant district attorney stated that defendant had possessed an image depicting him and his female relative engaged in sexual activity. The People concede, and we agree, that County Court improperly relied upon this hearsay, without making an inquiry into its reliability, in assessing 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim. While the court found that the photographs depicted sexual activity between the child and an adult, it made no finding that defendant was that adult. The People therefore failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was any sexual contact between defendant and the victim … .

Although defendant argues that the remedy for the error is to subtract 25 points from risk factor 2 and, upon doing so, designate him a risk level one sex offender, we agree with the People that the more appropriate course is to remit the matter to the SORA court “to provide the District Attorney an opportunity to establish a foundation” supporting the hearsay’s reliability … . People v Davis, 2024 NY Slip Op 06632, Third Dept 12-26-24

Practice Point: The People must establish a foundation supporting the reliability of any hearsay relied upon by the court in a SORA risk-level assessment proceeding.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of defendant’s motion to vacate his attempted murder convictions, determined defendant’s counsel (Lee) was not ineffective for failure to raise a medical-condition defense. Defendant argued he was incapable of running because of a gunshot wound. Several witnesses to the shooting testified the shooter ran after the victims:

It is unclear from the record as to whether Lee was informed of the existence of such a defense and that he ignored it without investigation. The record is devoid of any evidence, including an affidavit from counsel Brown [defendant’s prior attorney], as to whether Brown followed up on securing the medical records or whether he informed Lee of their existence and possible significance. While Lee testified that he had no recollection of the specifics of the case and therefore of being told of such a defense, he testified that it was his custom and practice to discuss and investigate possible defenses with his clients. Defendant also testified that he discussed various defenses with Lee, which Lee followed up on.

… [I]t is of note that defendant did not assert the defense of medical impossibility, and Lee’s alleged ineffectiveness in not presenting it, in defendant’s appeal of his conviction on October 16, 2001, his pro se CPL 440 motion dated October 6, 2004, or his habeas corpus petition dated February 22, 2006. While Supreme Court acknowledged that it was “troubling that the issue was not raised in the habeas corpus application,” it nevertheless dismissed the People’s argument … . The significance of defendant’s failure to raise the issue for over 19 years is two-fold. First, had defendant raised the issue earlier, Lee’s recollections as to what he did and did not do would certainly have been clearer. More importantly, Lee’s case files would be available for review and scrutiny. Despite Supreme Court’s recognition that “the loss of Lee’s file makes it impossible to prove that” Lee was in possession of the medical records or was aware of the records, it nevertheless improvidently concluded that Lee “conducted no investigation” and “did not look for an expert or for the treating doctor to consult about the injury and its consequences.”

Assuming Lee was informed of the existence of such a defense, defendant failed to overcome a “presumption” that the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy,” and demonstrate the “absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for the alleged shortcomings … . People v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 06550, First Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Although fact-specific, this opinion provides in-depth analysis of several issues raised in defendant’s motion to vacate his convictions, including ineffective assistance for failure to raise a defense, newly discovered evidence and actual innocence.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the declaratory judgment action, determined there was no justiciable controversy. Plaintiff sued the County Sheriff seeking a declaration that “assigning a local court to arraign a criminal defendant with two previous felony convictions violates the constitutional rights of the accused because local courts lack the ability to order release or set bail under those circumstances.” The issue arose because of a conflict among provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law:

… City Court issued a securing order that committed [defendant] to the custody of the Sheriff on the basis of CPL 530.20 (2) (a) (double predicate provision). The double predicate provision states that a city, town, or village court (hereinafter, local court) may not order release on recognizance or bail when the criminal defendant, like plaintiff, has two previous felony convictions. Plaintiff further alleged that the double predicate provision conflicts with CPL 510.10 (4) (qualifying offense provision), which limits the court’s ability to issue a securing order imposing bail or remand to situations in which the criminal defendant stands charged with an enumerated qualifying offense (see also CPL 510.10 [3]). * * *

We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations fail to “demonstrate the existence of a bona fide justiciable controversy” inasmuch as there is no “real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests for which a declaration of rights will have some practical effect” … . … “[T]he heart of the dispute is not any action taken by the Sheriff but rather whether the local . . . court must remand a given [criminal] defendant such as [plaintiff] to the custody of the Sheriff.” * * * Plaintiff’s real dispute is with the local court that issues a securing order ostensibly in violation of the qualifying offense provision, not with the Sheriff who is bound to obey the securing order. Where, as here, “there is no genuine dispute between the parties, the courts are precluded, as a matter of law, from issuing a declaratory judgment” … . Parker v Hilton, 2024 NY Slip Op 06456, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s dispute was not with the Sheriff, who is bound to obey a securing order, but was with the local court that issued the securing order which ostensibly violated a statute and the accused’s constitutional rights. Therefore there was no justiciable controversy between plaintiff and the Sheriff.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE AWARE THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS IN THE RESIDENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND WAS ARRESTED; THERE WERE NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE HOUSE AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE WEAPONS SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapons seized when the police did a “protective sweep” of defendant’s residence should have been granted. Defendant’s wife and daughter had left the residence and told the police, who were outside the residence, only the defendant was inside. Defendant eventually left the residence and was arrested. Only then did the police enter for the “protective sweep:”

… [W]e conclude that there were no emergency or exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the residence. Once defendant’s daughter exited the dwelling, the officers knew from defendant’s wife that no one else was in the dwelling except defendant. None of the officers at the scene witnessed anything that would lead them to suspect that there was another person in the residence. The “mere possibility” that a person could be inside the premises did not justify the search … . We also note that there was no indication that defendant had shot or injured anyone prior to the officers’ arrival at his residence, and at no time had defendant threatened the police or anyone else at the residence. Under the circumstances, there was no legitimate reason for the police not to apply for a search warrant before entering the house. People v Swank, 2024 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A “protective sweep” of a residence that the police know to be vacant amounts to a warrantless search in the absence of exigent circumstances.

 

, ,

THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s dismissal of the felony aggravated driving while intoxicated count, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, determined the grand jury was properly instructed on the definition of “impaired.” The Fourth Department noted its disagreement with the Third Department on this issue:

… [T]he People correctly instructed the grand jury that the term “impaired” in the context of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) is defined as the defendant’s consumption of a combination of drugs and alcohol to the point that it “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

In reaching that conclusion, we also note our respectful disagreement with the Third Department’s decision in People v Caden N. (189 AD3d 84 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1050 [2021]), which defined the term “impaired” in the context of drug consumption in accordance with the heightened standard typically applicable in cases of “intoxication” by alcohol … . Ultimately, we conclude that the term “impaired” should be defined consistently across the Vehicle and Traffic Law—whether in the context of impairment by alcohol or in the context of impairment by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals, in Cruz, clearly defined the term “impaired” to mean—in the context of alcohol consumption—that a defendant “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (48 NY2d [419] at 427 …). In defining “impaired” that way, the Court sharply distinguished the term “impaired” from the separate term “intoxication,” as used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), noting that the latter term denoted “a greater degree of impairment which is reached when [a] driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that [they are] incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (Cruz, 48 NY2d [419] at 428). The Court concluded that the terms impaired and intoxicated are not interchangeable … . People v Dondorfer, 2024 NY Slip Op 06432, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: In the Fourth Department “impaired” in the context of felony aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 (4-a)” means impairment “to any extent [of] the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

 

, ,

A HANDGUN USED AS BLUDGEON IS A “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A BURGLARY FIRST DEGREE COUNT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE CHARGE TO BURGLARY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and reinstating the reduced count, determined the handgun with which the victim was allegedly struck was a “dangerous instrument” despite the fact it had not been fired. County Court had reduced the charge from Burglary first to Burglary second on the ground the handgun had not been shown to be a “dangerous instrument:”

The People were required to present competent evidence to the grand jury demonstrating that defendant or another participant in the crime used, or threatened the immediate use of, a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). A dangerous instrument is defined as “any instrument, article or substance . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (§ 10.00 [13]).

At the grand jury hearing, the victim testified that three men entered her apartment and the first man who walked in had a gun. She further testified that, at one point, “the guy with the gun” became “more upset” and hit her “upside the head” with the gun.

It is well established that “a ‘gun [that is] used as a bludgeon’ is a dangerous instrument” … because it ” ‘is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury’ ” … . Here, County Court ruled that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish that the item used by defendant or another participant in the crime was a dangerous instrument because it was not discharged during the incident and there was no evidence that the item was recovered or tested. That was error. We agree with the People that they were not required to submit evidence that the item described by the victim as a gun was an operable or loaded firearm in order to meet the dangerous instrument element of the crime … . We further agree with the People that they were not required to prove that the victim suffered an injury but, rather, needed only to establish that “under the circumstances in which [the instrument, article, or substance was] used . . . or threatened to be used, [it was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13] …). It is reasonable for a grand jury to infer that hitting the victim on the side of the victim’s head with a gun could cause serious physical injury. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that defendant or another participant in the crime used a dangerous instrument … . People v Delee, 2024 NY Slip Op 06491, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A handgun used as a bludgeon is a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of the Penal Law and the Burglary First Degree statute. The People need not show the handgun was operable or that the victim suffered a serious injury.

 

, ,

ON THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL, THE TRIAL COURT’S VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE WAS REVERSED; THE NEW EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE SHOOTER, DEFENDANT WAS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE SHOOTER; AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY CONSIDER THE TRIAL COURT’S GROUNDS FOR ITS RULINGS, OR RULINGS ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and denying the motion to vacate the criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined new evidence which indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the machine gun to the shooter (Scott)  would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict. Defendant would have been convicted as an accomplice. In rejecting an argument on appeal that was not part of the ruling below, the Fourth Department explained that its appellate jurisdiction is limited to grounds relied on by the trial court which were adverse to the appellant:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence in question is not “of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10 [1] [g] …). Scott’s deposition testimony establishes that defendant possessed the loaded machine gun, provided it to Scott, transported Scott to the vicinity of the crime, and had a motive to harm the victims because his family had “beef” with theirs, thus providing sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty as an accomplice to the weapons possession of which he was convicted … . ” ‘[W]hether one is the actual perpetrator of the offense or an accomplice is, with respect to criminal liability for the offense, irrelevant’ ” … .

Defendant requests that we affirm on the ground, which he asserted in the court below, that consideration of the new evidence in light of a theory of accessorial liability requires an impermissible amendment to the indictment. We agree with the People that we have no authority to affirm on that basis … .

Under CPL 470.15 (1), “[u]pon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” * * * The Appellate Division engages in “the type of appellate overreaching prohibited by CPL 470.15 (1)” when it “renders a decision on grounds explicitly different from those of the trial court, or on grounds that were clearly resolved in [the appellant’s] favor” … .

Here, the court determined that “the accessorial liability theory, if presented at a new trial, would not constitute an impermissible amendment to the indictment in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights,” clearly resolving that issue in the People’s favor.  People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 06473, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: New evidence indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the weapon to the shooter with the requisite intent. Because the new evidence would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon charge, defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should have been denied.

Practice Point: An intermediate appellate court can only consider grounds for rulings relied on by the trial court or rulings adverse to the appellant.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE CHARGES RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE MURDERS, COMMITTED NEARLY TWO YEARS APART, WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JURY WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY CONSIDERING SEPARATELY THE PROOF FOR EACH OFFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s murder convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two comprehensive dissenting opinions, determined the denial of defendant’s motion to sever the charges relating to two separate murders, committed nearly two years apart, was not error:

The first victim was the defendant’s roommate, who was found dead in their shared apartment in 2013 after a fire that occurred under circumstances that later raised questions about her cause of death. The second victim was a woman whom defendant had hired to go on a date with him in December 2014; her body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. The defendant was arrested in 2017 … . * * *

Where counts have been joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (c), the CPL provides that the trial court has discretion to sever them if doing so would be “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown” (id. 200.20 [3]). This provision has its origins in a 1936 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure that allowed joinder of “two or more acts or transactions constituting crimes of the same or a similar character which are neither connected together nor parts of a common scheme or plan” … .

The statute specifies two situations that establish good cause: first, where there is “[s]ubstantially more proof on one or more such joinable offenses than on others and there is a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it relates to each offense”; and second, where there is “[a] convincing showing that a defendant has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other, which satisfies the court that the risk of prejudice is substantial” … . The statute expressly notes that good cause is not limited to these grounds … , and we have explained that “a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice” must be protected when offenses are joined for trial … . …

… The defendant asserts that “the jury was incapable of considering the proof separately with respect to each offense” because the proof of each crime was “markedly different” and “dissimilar.” … [But] the key question is whether it would be difficult for the jury to consider separately the proof for each offense … . People v Mero, 2024 NY Slip Op 06385, CtApp 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion, especially the extensive dissents, for a comprehensive discussion of the issues raised by trying a defendant for two unrelated murders, separated by years, in a single trial.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CROSSING THE FOG LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY THREE TIMES IN SECONDS CONSTITUTED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined there was probable cause for the traffic stop which resulted in a DWI conviction. Defendant’s car crossed the fog line on the right side of the roadway three times within seconds:

When a driver swerves over the fog line repeatedly, in quick succession, they have failed to “drive[ ] as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane” in violation of VTL § 1128 (a) (see e.g. Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 33 NY3d 926, 928 [2019] [testimony that vehicle “ma(de) an erratic movement off the right side of the road, crossing the fog line and moving off the shoulder with the vehicle’s right front tire” provided substantial evidence that stop was lawful under VTL § 1128 (a)]; People v Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1177, 1178 [2d Dept 2010]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2d Dept 2006]; cf. People v Davis, 58 AD3d 896, 898 [3d Dept 2009] [police officer’s testimony that driver had made “brief contacts with the fog line,” but not that driver was, for example, “weaving, driving erratically or even that he drove onto the shoulder” was insufficient to support traffic stop under VTL § 1128 (a)]). On these facts, the troopers’ observations, which were credited by the suppression court, established probable cause for the traffic stop. Therefore, the court properly denied the motion to suppress. People v Rufus, 2024 NY Slip Op 06384, CtApp 12-19-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s crossing the fog line on the right side of the highway three times in seconds violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constituted probable cause for the traffic stop.

 

, ,

IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, THE JUVENILE’S BEHAVIOR—LOOKING AT THE UNDERCOVER VEHICLE AND TURNING HIS BICYCLE AROUND—DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING THE STREET STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court’s finding there was reasonable suspicion justifying the street stop of the juvenile, determined the officers’ observation of the juvenile’s “look[ing] in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal[ing], duck[ing], turn[ing] the bicycle around and rid[ing] in the opposite direction” was not sufficient. The police had been alerted to a gunshot in the area. A handgun was retrieved from the juvenile:

… [T]he totality of the circumstances did not support Family Court’s finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and his detention was unlawful because appellant’s “equivocal or innocuous behavior” was “susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation” … . Police, in two unmarked vehicles, while canvassing the area in response to a “Shotspotter” sensor report of shots fired, observed appellant riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. An officer observed appellant look in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal, duck, turn the bicycle around and ride in the opposite direction. The officer found appellant’s actions suspicious, exited the vehicle, approached appellant, ordered him to stop, grabbed him by both wrists and pushed him against the wall. While appellant was detained another officer observed a bulge in appellant’s pocket, squeezed the pocket area and retrieved a firearm.

Although an officer observed an L-shaped object in appellant’s pocket during the detention, there is no evidence or any reasonable inference that the officer “was in a position to view the contraband absent the unlawful detention” … . Matter of W.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 06426, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Here the police were canvassing the area after a report of a gunshot. They stopped the juvenile after observing him look at their undercover vehicle and turn his bicycle around. A handgun was retrieved during the stop. The First Department held the observations did not provide the police with “reasonable suspicion” and the street stop was therefore not justified.

 

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