You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing one of defendant’s robbery convictions and ordering a new trial, determined (1) a new trial is required because the judge did not obtain defendant’s written and signed consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations had begun, and (2) the showup identification of the defendant was unreasonable and unduly suggestive, requiring dismissal of the counts relating to one of the two robberies (there was no identification testimony at the trial):

“Under CPL 270.35, once the jury has commenced deliberations an alternate juror may not be substituted for a regular juror unless the defendant consents to the replacement . . . in writing . . . signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court” … . * * *

… [T]the People failed to establish that the showup identification was conducted in close temporal proximity to the crime … . Further, there was no unbroken chain of events or exigent circumstances that justified the showup identification, as the defendant was already under arrest for the second robbery … .

… [T]he People failed to establish that the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. Here, prior to the showup identification, the complainant was informed by the police officers that they had someone in custody who matched the description provided by the complainant. During the showup identification, the defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and there were one to two police officers near the defendant as he was treated by emergency medical service providers. While these factors alone do not necessarily render a showup identification unduly suggestive, when viewed cumulatively with other factors, including that the officers informed the complainant that the defendant committed another crime around the corner, that the defendant’s face was severely bruised and bleeding, and that it was “an active crime scene” with several surrounding officers dealing with witnesses “[y]elling and screaming,” the showup identification was unduly suggestive … . People v Simon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00117, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun must be in writing signed in open court.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a showup identification deemed unreasonable and unduly suggestive.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant at the time of the search. Therefore the People did not prove the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest and the evidence should have been suppressed:

Defendant was entitled to suppression of the cocaine and money recovered in a search of his person, which occurred after officers pulled over the minivan in which he was a passenger for two traffic violations and detected a strong odor of marijuana as they approached the van. An officer saw loose marijuana on defendant’s lap, asked him to step out of the car, and immediately frisked him, finding a small plastic bag in defendant’s pocket and a significantly larger one inside the top of his underwear. The drugs were not recovered in a valid search pursuant to a lawful arrest because the record fails to show that the officer had any intention of arresting defendant before recovering the cocaine … . People v Aragon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Unless the People prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant when the search was done, the search is not a valid search incident to arrest and suppression is required.

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the probation condition prohibiting defendant from using the subway, trains or buses for three years was not warranted because defendant did not commit the underlying crime on public transportation. The issue need not be preserved for appeal and survives a waiver of appeal:

The court improperly imposed, as a condition of probation, a requirement that defendant “[r]efrain from using or entering any Metropolitan Transportation Authority subway, train, bus, or other conveyance or facility for a period of up to three years.” Defendant did not commit the instant crime, or have a history of misconduct, on public transportation. Accordingly, the prohibition from using or entering any public transportation conveyance or facility was not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life … . Because this issue implicates the legality of the sentence imposed, it survives defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation for appellate review … . People v Alvarez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06662, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: A probation condition which is not warranted by the underlying conviction or by defendant’s prior record may be reversed even if the issue has not been preserved and and/or appeal has been waived.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S FANNY PACK WAS A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions for tampering with evidence and resisting arrest, determined the search of defendant’s fanny pack was not demonstrated to have been a valid search incident to arrest:

The People failed to demonstrate that the search of defendant’s fanny pack was a proper search incident to a lawful arrest because they failed to establish either that the officer actually arrested defendant or intended to do so before opening his bag … . People v Lamberty, 2024 NY Slip Op 06669, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: Here the People did not prove the officer who searched defendant’s fanny pack actually arrested defendant or intended to arrest the defendant before opening pack. Therefore the People did not prove the search was a valid search incident to arrest.

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO AGREE TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND RESIDENCE WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE CONVICTION (LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT); THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the probation condition requiring defendant to agree to searches of his person, residence and vehicle for drugs, weapons or contraband was not warranted by his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. The issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [T]he court improperly imposed, as a condition of probation, a requirement that defendant consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, or residence for illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, or contraband … . “Defendant was not under the influence of any substance or armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted” … , and he “had no history of violence or use of weapons” (People v Hall, 228 AD3d at 467). His single misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession preceded the instant offense by nearly a decade … . Thus, the consent to search condition was not “‘reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so'” … . We note that defendant’s challenge to the conditions of his probation did not require preservation … and would not be foreclosed even if the appeal waiver were valid … . People v Fernandez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06671, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: A probation condition requiring that defendant agree to searches of his person, vehicle and residence must be warranted by the nature of the underlying conviction. The condition was not warranted for “leaving the scene of an accident.”​

 

, , ,

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” … .

 

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