You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10; PROOF HERE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING; HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL.

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant had sufficiently alleged the prosecutor may have withheld information which could have been used to impeach the testimony of an important witness in this murder case (Brady material). In addition, the First Department held that “actual innocence” can be raised as a ground for vacation of a conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 440.10. Although the First Department found the defendant did not present sufficient evidence of actual innocence to warrant a hearing, the “actual innocence” discussion is most significant part of the opinion:

We agree with the [2nd] Department [People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12} that CPL 440.10(1)(h) embraces a claim of actual innocence. If depriving a defendant of an opportunity to prove that he or she has not committed a crime for which he or she has been convicted is not a “violation of a right . . . under the constitution of this state or of the United States,” then that section of the statute is virtually hollow. Both constitutions guarantee liberty through their due process clauses, and a wrongful conviction represents the ultimate deprivation of liberty. Notably, the People do not contest the applicability, in theory, of Hamilton to this case.

Nevertheless, defendant did not clear the threshold set by the Hamilton court as necessary to gain a hearing on an actual innocence claim, because he did not present “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the court” … . This is the sole articulation in Hamilton of a standard governing when a hearing is warranted on such a claim. However, this specific standard for actual innocence claims should be considered in light of, and alongside, the more general standard applicable on any motion to vacate a conviction brought under CPL 440.10. Thus, statements of fact supporting the motion must be sworn … . Further, hearsay statements in support of such motions are not probative evidence … . People v Jimenez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05620, 1st Dept 7-21-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10; PROOF HERE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING; HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10; PROOF HERE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING; HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL)/MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION (ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10; PROOF HERE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING; HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL)/BRADY MATERIAL (HEARING REQUIRED ON WHETHER PROSECUTOR WITHHELD BRADY MATERIAL)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS A GROUND FOR VACATION OF A CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 440.10)

, , ,

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding that appellant, had he been an adult, would have committed criminal possession of a weapon (and related offenses) was against the weight of the evidence. The Second Department clearly explained its role in a weight of the evidence review and essentially rejected the testimony of the arresting officers:

 

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we have a responsibility to affirmatively review the record; independently assess all of the proof; substitute our own credibility determinations for those made by the Family Court in an appropriate case; determine whether the Family Court’s determination was factually correct; and acquit the appellant if we are not convinced that the Family Court’s adjudication of the appellant as a juvenile delinquent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

The reasonable inferences to be made from the officers’ collective testimony were that at least two other individuals were with the appellant at the time of his arrest and, contrary to the initial testimony that the appellant was the only person observed in the area of the firearm, multiple individuals were in the vicinity of the firearm at the relevant time.

In addition, when the appellant was brought to the precinct, he denied possessing the firearm and asked Officer Thomas to check to see if there were cameras in the area of the incident. Officer Thomas testified that at the end of his shift on the date in question, he returned to the scene and viewed surveillance video from a store in the area. However, he did not take notes or ask for a copy of the video, and he “completely forgot to notify anybody” of his investigation or record it in his memo book. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, he could not recall whether the video he viewed depicted the street at the relevant time. Matter of Trevor S., 2016 NY Slip Op 05574, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/EVIDENCE (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/CRIMINAL LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/APPEALS (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)

,

SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED.

 

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the police did not have justification for searching defendant’s duffel bag and the evidence seized from the bag should have been suppressed. Defendant was arrested in his residence on an outstanding warrant. The defendant was handcuffed when the duffel bag was retrieved by a police officer (Gillis) from behind the couch:

To justify a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two 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” … . Two interests underlie the exigency requirement: “‘the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment'” … .

The People failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstances justifying the search of defendant’s duffel bag. Gillis testified that the bag was still against the wall when defendant was handcuffed and personally searched pursuant to the outstanding warrant, and Gillis had to physically retrieve the bag from behind the couch in order to search it. In addition, the officers had searched the residence prior to arresting defendant and did not find any evidence of drug activity or paraphernalia, the owner told Gillis that there was nothing illegal in the apartment and defendant denied that there was contraband in the bag when questioned about its contents. Thus, the search of the subject bag was improper and its contents — namely, crack cocaine, cell phones and train tickets — should have been suppressed … . People v Ortiz, 2016 NY Slip Op 05521, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED)/CLOSED CONTAINERS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined evidence of a prior sexual assault, factually similar to the charged offenses, should not have been admitted in the People’s direct case. The victim of the prior assault testified in detail about it. The Third Department held that the prejudicial effect of the prior assault outweighed its probative value, irrespective of whether the evidence fit any Molineux exception to the rule excluding evidence of prior crimes:

… “[E]vidence of uncharged crimes or prior bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions — motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity — or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provides necessary background or completes a witness’s narrative and, further, the trial court determines that the probative value of such evidence outweighs is prejudicial effect” … . Here, even assuming, without deciding, that the previous victim’s testimony at trial and the corresponding photographs fall within one or more of the aforementioned Molineux exceptions, we agree with defendant that the prejudicial effect of such evidence far outweighs its probative value and, therefore, the People should not have been permitted to introduce such evidence on their case-in-chief. People v Ward, 2016 NY Slip Op 05518, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/PRIOR CRIMES (EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED/MOLINEUX (EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s murder conviction, finding defense counsel ineffective. Counsel’s errors included: (1) failure to object the prosecutor’s mischaracterization of DNA evidence found on defendant’s clothes (this failure alone warranted reversal); (2) failure to object to irrelevant evidence about the victim’s demeanor, education, behavior as a mother, etc. (evidence from as far back as 1998), and an inept summation which misstated the burden and standard of proof and acknowledged the possibility defendant committed the crime:

[The DNA expert] testified … that there were not enough alleles or DNA data to say conclusively that the victim’s DNA was present.

Nevertheless, during summation, the prosecutor repeatedly mischaracterized [the expert’s] testimony and the DNA results by stating multiple times that the victim’s DNA was on the sweatshirt. Specifically, the prosecutor initially stated that “on that sweatshirt is [defendant’s] wife’s DNA.” Later, when discussing [the expert’s] DNA report, the prosecutor incorrectly stated that the report “shows that [the victim’s] DNA was on that area where the bloody spot is.” Even if this last statement could be viewed as asking the jury to make an inference from the evidence at trial, the prosecutor again misstated the testimony by saying, “We have the forensic people who say[] . . . [the victim’s] DNA is on that sweatshirt, to some degree.” Defense counsel made no objections to such characterization of the testimony or DNA analysis. People v Ramsaran, 2016 NY Slip Op 05520, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/DNA EVIDENCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

, ,

REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN DEFENDANT BE INFORMED OF POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO DEFENDANT WHO ABSCONDED BEFORE APPEAL PERFECTED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the non-citizen defendant, whose direct appeal was pending when he absconded, was entitled to the protection afforded by People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, which requires the court to inform the defendant deportation may follow a plea to a felony:

The issue here is whether a defendant whose case still is on direct appeal should be denied the benefit of the Court of Appeals’ ruling in People v Peque … , which is rooted in federal constitutional law, because defendant absconded from parole before his attorney perfected this appeal. We conclude Peque should apply to defendant’s case.

In Peque, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court is obligated to apprise any defendants that if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony … . That decision acknowledged that under federal immigration law, deportation, in many cases, is an inevitable consequence of a noncitizen’s guilty plea and that as part of the defendant’s decision to make a voluntary and intelligent choice to plead guilty, the defendant must be alerted to the deportation consequences by the court. In the instant case, the court did not advise defendant about the immigration consequences flowing from his plea … . People v Tejeda, 2016 NY Slip Op 05541, 1st Dept 7-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN DEFENDANT BE INFORMED OF POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO DEFENDANT WHO ABSCONDED BEFORE APPEAL PERFECTED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN DEFENDANT BE INFORMED OF POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO DEFENDANT WHO ABSCONDED BEFORE APPEAL PERFECTED)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN DEFENDANT BE INFORMED OF POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO DEFENDANT WHO ABSCONDED BEFORE APPEAL PERFECTED)/IMMIGRATION LAW  (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN DEFENDANT BE INFORMED OF POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO DEFENDANT WHO ABSCONDED BEFORE APPEAL PERFECTED)

,

FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JURORS RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL.

The Third Department, over a two justice dissent, determined defense counsel’s failure to contest the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for striking jurors rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal:

Following the People’s step-two proffer, County Court denied the Batson challenge, without any attempt to respond or protestation registered by defendant. Now, on appeal, defendant contends for the first time that County Court erred in failing to conduct a step-three inquiry. However, “[b]y accepting the People’s explanation without any additional objection at a time [when] it could have been addressed, defendant failed to preserve” this contention for our review … , and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction … . In reaching this conclusion, we reaffirm the importance of both the trial court’s attention to each articulated, sequential step of the Batson inquiry, and counsel’s “attention to placing their objections on the record so they may be addressed by the court” … . Indeed, “whatever procedural problems may exist in a Batson inquiry, the overriding concern is that a properly preserved question regarding the ultimate issue of discrimination is meaningfully addressed” … . People v Acevedo, 2016 NY Slip Op 05517, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/JURORS (BATSON CHALLENGE, FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/APPEALS (BATSON CHALLENGE, FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/BATSON CHALLENGE (FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)

INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT.

The Third Department determined that the court’s inquiry into whether the defendant understood the affirmative defense (insanity) he waived by pleading guilty was insufficient:

Defense counsel advised County Court during the plea colloquy that there were significant issues regarding defendant’s mental state when he attacked the trooper and that, as a result, a psychiatrist had assessed whether defendant “was unable to form the intent necessary” to commit the charged offenses … . Defense counsel then represented that defendant had agreed to accept the proffered plea bargain because the psychiatrist opined that an insanity defense could properly be raised at trial, but that he would be unable to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that defendant “did not understand the nature and consequences of his actions or that his conduct was wrong” (see Penal Law § 40.15). County Court’s response to those statements was limited to confirming that defendant had heard the representations of defense counsel, discussed those issues with him and believed that the plea agreement was “a fair resolution.” The Court of Appeals has made clear, however, that “question[s] to [a] defendant verifying that he [or she] discussed that defense with his [or her] attorney and opted not to assert it” are insufficient under these circumstances … . People v Green, 2016 NY Slip Op 05515, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/WAIVER (CRIMINAL LAW, INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/INSANITY DEFENSE (INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)

,

POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, essentially finding the police officer’s testimony incredible:

Here, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, particularly in light of objective facts—including the arresting officer’s failure to record the arrest in his memo book, his failure to call in the arrest, his failure to voucher the bandanas or masks, and the loss of the case folder containing the original of the defendant’s written statement and signed Miranda waiver—all of which cast doubt on the arresting officer’s credibility … . Moreover, the defendant testified at trial to a completely different version of events, including that he and his companion were not wearing masks or bandanas and he did not possess a gun or any marihuana. The defendant’s credibility was supported by the testimony of three character witnesses regarding his propensity for truthfulness, and no evidence was elicited to undermine the defendant’s credibility. Notably, the defendant had no prior history of arrests and had been gainfully employed by the same employer for seven years. Further, the defendant’s companion, who also had no history of prior arrests and had been gainfully employed for six years, testified to the same version of events as the defendant. Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15), we find that the rational inferences which can be drawn from the evidence presented at trial do not support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Oneill, 2016 NY Slip Op 05510, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

,

SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department determined the show up identification 30 minutes after the crime was not unduly suggestive and should not have been suppressed:

Here, the People met their initial burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure, which was conducted within approximately 30 minutes of the crime and within three or four blocks of the crime scene, was reasonable under the circumstances and lacked undue suggestiveness … . The defendants, in turn, failed to satisfy their ultimate burden of proving that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive and subject to suppression. Under the circumstances of this case, the mere presence of police, patrol cars, headlights, or other lighting at the scene of the identifications did not render the procedure unduly suggestive … . People v Huerta, 2016 NY Slip Op 05508, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SHOWUP (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

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