You are here: / Criminal Law

PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, with a concurring opinion and over a dissenting opinion, determined the 2005 case which invalidated guilty pleas accepted without express notice of the period of postrelase supervision (PRS) (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242) should not be applied retroactively. In both cases before the court, the pre-Catu convictions by guilty plea were challenged to prohibit their consideration as predicate crimes for sentencing in post-Catu offenses. The analysis, which encompasses federal and state constitutional law, is too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [N]either [defendant’s] conviction was obtained in violation of the law as it existed at the time of their respective convictions. Both state and federal law required that a defendant demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known about a mandatory term of his sentence. It was not until our 2005 decision in Catu that a defendant was entitled to automatic vacatur. * * *

Our Catu “automatic vacatur” rule did not constitute ,,, a “watershed rule”… . Catu was not necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction, and it is doubtful that the failure of the courts to apprise defendants … of the PRS component resulted in them pleading guilty to crimes that they did not commit. Indeed, when presented with their prior convictions, defendants … acknowledged that they were the individuals mentioned in the predicate felony statements filed by the People, and that they did not wish to challenge any of the allegations contained within their respective statements. People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 07106, CtApp 11-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY).CATU, PEOPLE V (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/GUILTY PLEAS (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)

EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, determined the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged the illegal possession of a “billy.”  The accusatory instrument stated that a police officer observed defendant with a “rubber gripped, metal, extendable baton (billy club)” in his rear pants pocket. Based upon his training and experience, the officer stated that “said baton device is designed primarily as a weapon, consisting of a tubular, metal body with a rubber grip and extendable feature and used to inflict serious injury upon a person by striking or choking.” The term “billy” is not defined in the Penal Law. When the law was enacted a billy club was a fixed wooden baton. The question before the court was whether a metal, expandable baton constituted a “billy” within the meaning of the statute:

In our view, ,,, the only plausible interpretation of the term “billy” encompasses a collapsible metal baton … . Our conclusion in this regard does not rest — as the dissent suggests — on whether or not law enforcement personnel has chosen to use this particular type of instrument. Rather, our determination follows from the common understanding of the term “billy” and our view that the baton at issue here fits comfortably within the definition thereof. Therefore, we hold that the accusatory instrument alleging that defendant possessed a metal, extendable striking weapon with a handle grip, was sufficient to charge him with possessing a “billy” under Penal Law § 265.01 (1) so as to provide sufficient notice for him to prepare a defense and to protect him from multiple prosecutions. People v Ocasio, 2016 NY Slip Op 07105, CtApp 11-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW)/BILLY (EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW)

,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search:

The critical issue in this case is whether the officers’ search of the car, which was conducted back at the police district headquarters and not at the arrest location, was a legitimate inventory search. We conclude that it was. The People introduced a copy of the relevant patrol guide section outlining the procedures for inventory searches. Everything was removed from the car, under the direction of a sergeant, and even items such as nail clippers were vouchered. A contemporaneous list was made of the items that were removed, and the list was introduced at the hearing. Copies of property clerk invoices also were admitted in evidence at the hearing. The testimony at the hearing established that the officers did not exercise discretion in removing items from the car, and that the search was not a ruse to recover incriminating evidence … . People v Lee, 2016 NY Slip Op 07081, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/INVENTORY SEARCH (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined Supreme Court’s summary denial of youthful offender status, which had not even been addressed by counsel or the probation department, did not satisfy the statutory requirements. The Third Department, notwithstanding that the youthful offender issue had not been raised on appeal, stepped in and adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender. The defendant took sneakers from the victim after lifting his shirt, revealing what may have been a gun in his waistband:

The grievous error of the Probation Department, the People and defense counsel, while not specifically raised on appeal, cries out for resolution. Since we are vested with the broad, plenary power to modify a sentence in the interest of justice, we can address this injustice and, if warranted, exercise our power to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender … . * * *

Defendant was just 16 years old at the time of the present offense and, although he had served a period of juvenile probation, he had no prior criminal record or history of violence … . We reiterate that the crime, although serious, did not cause physical injury to anyone involved and defendant neither brandished the object nor uttered any direct threats of violence during the incident. After his arrest, defendant cooperated with police and provided a statement admitting that he had taken the shoes with no intention of returning them to the victim but denying that he had possessed or displayed anything that resembled a gun … . People v Marquis A., 2016 NY Slip Op 07060, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)

,

AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence would not be reviewed in the interest of justice. Defendant had been promised a three-year sentence, but was not eligible for a sentence less than six years. In violation of his plea agreement, defendant committed a crime while awaiting sentence. As a result the three-year promise was properly withdrawn and a six year sentence imposed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s failure to object based upon the illegal three-year sentence promise precluded appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, upon remittal, the Appellate Division could consider the question if it exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction (which the majority declined to do):

… [T]here is nothing rare or unusual about this case or this defendant. The plea proceedings do not raise a concern about defendant’s guilt. Defendant was advised of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and affirmed he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Defendant was represented by counsel and received a favorable sentence. Finally, defendant violated the plea agreement by committing another crime and the final sentence imposed was both legal and within the range announced by the court. Nor has defendant presented anything to demonstrate that his case is extraordinary. These facts, coupled with defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for review, fail to support the exercise of our discretion to review in the interest of justice, and militate against such exercise. People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07102, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/SENTENCING (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)

, ,

SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a three-judge dissent, determined the search of a juvenile’s shoe at the police station was reasonable. Therefore, the weapon found in the shoe was admissible. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the dissent below did not present a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact:

Respondent initially told police on the street that he was 16 years old. Because he lacked identification, the police transported him to the precinct, where, nearly an hour later, he told them that he was only 15 years old. Thereafter, the officers treated respondent as a juvenile, placing him in a juvenile room and making him remove his belt, shoelaces and shoes as a protective measure until his parents were notified and he could be picked up from the precinct. Based on respondent’s representation that he was 16 years old and the officers’ observations of him in the street, the officers had probable cause to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct.

We also conclude that the limited search of respondent’s shoes was reasonable. The majority found no fault with the request that respondent remove his belt and shoelaces as a safety precaution; rather it was the request to remove his shoes that the majority held to be “far more intrusive than a frisk or patdown” … . However, the officers were not first required to suspect that respondent either possessed contraband or posed a danger to himself or officers before being directed to remove his shoes. In that regard, the limited search of respondent’s shoes while he was temporarily detained and awaiting the notification of his parents was a reasonable protective measure employed by police to ensure both the safety of respondent and the officers, and the intrusion was minimal … . Matter of Jamal S., 2016 NY Slip Op 07045, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/FAMILY LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined defendants’ challenges to the procedure by which he was indicted were not jurisdictional in nature and, therefore, did not survive his guilty plea. A so-called “DNA indictment” named a John Doe because the DNA from the perpetrator could not be matched to anyone in the DNA database. Years later, DNA taken from the defendant was matched to that in the “John Doe” DNA indictment. The People then moved to add defendant’s name to the indictment based upon hearsay statements in the motion papers. The motion was granted. Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to indictment by grand jury because his name was added to the “John Doe” indictment in the absence of any additional proceedings in front of a grand jury:

A jurisdictional defect in an indictment may not be waived by a guilty plea and can be raised for the first time on appeal … . “[A]n indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime, by, for example, failing to allege every material element of the crime charged, or alleging acts that do not equal a crime at all” … . * * *

Insufficiency of an indictment’s factual allegations … does not constitute a jurisdictional defect that is reviewable by this Court … , and, once a guilty plea has been entered, “the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury cannot be challenged” … . Thus, “‘[a] guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings'”

Here, the DNA indictment properly charged a person with acts that constitute a crime, albeit identifying the individual by a unique DNA profile rather than by his name. As such, it avoided … jurisdictional infirmities … . Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the DNA indictment is based on the failure to identify him as the perpetrator by name, but this alleged defect is not a jurisdictional one, and therefore, does not survive his guilty plea. By pleading guilty, defendant acknowledged that he was the person who committed the offense. Defendant therefore forfeited his challenge and is foreclosed from raising the issue on appeal. Once defendant pleaded guilty, his “‘conviction rest[ed] directly on the sufficiency of the plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to a conviction after trial'”… . People v Guerrero, 2016 NY Slip Op 07044, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/INDICTMENT (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/DNA INDICTMENT (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/GRAND JURY (DNA INDICTMENT, ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED.”

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to follow the statutory procedures for sentencing a persistent felony offender required that the motion to set aside the sentence be granted:

CPL 400.15 and 400.16 “govern the procedure that must be followed in any case where it appears that a defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony offense . . . has previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions . . . and may be a persistent violent felony offender” (CPL 400.16[1]). Here, neither the People nor the Supreme Court complied with that mandatory procedure. Therefore, the sentence was “illegally imposed” (CPL 440.20[1]), regardless of whether the defendant is, in fact, a persistent violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.08[1]), and the Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the sentence … . People v Rivera, 2016 NY Slip Op 07036, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED SENTENCE “ILLEGALLY IMPOSED”)

,

FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined defense counsel’s failure to argue, in a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, that the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results was not demonstrated to constitute ineffective assistance:

On this record, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the argument that the People were not acting with due diligence, as there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the People were not diligent in requesting DNA testing on the evidence or that the manner in which the DNA testing was conducted by [the medical examiner] was inconsistent with standard laboratory protocols. In addition, at the time of defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, there already was Appellate Division authority holding that the period of time needed to obtain the results of DNA testing could be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/DNA TESTING (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SPEEDY TRIAL (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

,

PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reaffirmed its precedent allowing voluntary statements made after Miranda rights have been invoked to be used to impeach should the defendant take the stand:

This Court has long held that if a statement made by the defendant to the police is voluntary, it may be used for impeachment purposes; but if a statement is involuntary, it will not be admissible, even if it may be deemed reliable … . * * *

Here, County Court determined that the statements were voluntary and the Appellate Division affirmed that determination. …  …[T]here is nothing in the record to support defendant’s contention that [the interrogating officer] consciously circumvented defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights or otherwise rendered defendant’s statements involuntary as a matter of law. Thus, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to preclude the People from utilizing the statements on cross-examination or rebuttal. People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06942, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/EVIDENCE PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED

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