You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable:

… [W]e conclude that the People did not meet their burden of establishing the third element of the plain view exception—i.e., that the incriminating nature of the seized items was immediately apparent. In making such a determination, we must consider whether “the facts available to the [police] officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that [the] items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” … . This is a probable cause standard—i.e., there need not be “certainty or near certainty” about the incriminating nature of the seized items … . That element is not satisfied, however, “where the object [to be seized] must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined” … . Indeed, “[s]uch a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the [police] officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated” … . Still, “[a] truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a search” … . People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05733, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the fact the checks were forged was not apparent until the police “manipulated” them. Therefore the “plain view” exception to the search-warrant requirement was not applicable and the checks should have been suppressed.

 

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE OR SHE WOULD HOLD THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a prospective juror’s indication he or she would hold defendant’s refusal to testify against the defendant required excusal “for cause:”

Here, the prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that he “[a]bsolutely” might hold it against defendant if defendant chose not to testify … .

Contrary to the court’s determination, the prospective juror did not “give unequivocal assurance that [he could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or ‘talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[ ] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [the prospective juror] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, [the] trial court[ ] should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have ‘replaced one impartial juror with another’ ” … . We conclude that the prospective juror’s act of nodding his head affirmatively after the court gave an instruction and posed a question to the entire jury panel was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration” … . People v Cheese, 2024 NY Slip Op 05712, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the prospective juror indicated bias requiring excusal for cause by indicating he or she would hold the refusal to testify against the defendant.

 

,

SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the People’s appeal was timely because defendant never served the order dismissing the indictment on them so the 30-day appeal period never started running, and (2) the People were not obligated to turn over Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) documents to comply with their discovery obligations because the People did not possess those documents:

The Court of Appeals has “interpreted CPL 460.10 (1) (a) ‘to require prevailing party service’—not just the handing out of an order by the court—’to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that the People received a copy of the original order, but there is “no evidence that [defendant] ever served the order as required by CPL 460.10 (1) (a)” … . Inasmuch as the record fails to establish that defendant ever served the People with a copy of the original order, the People’s 30-day period to appeal never began to run and the People’s appeal is therefore timely … . * * *

… [A]ssuming … that the parole officer’s disciplinary records from DOCCS met the relevancy prong as being related to the subject matter of the case, we conclude that the People established that those records did not meet the possessory prong required to prompt their initial discovery obligation with respect thereto (see CPL 245.20 [1] …). “[F]or the purposes of discovery, DOCCS is not a ‘law enforcement’ agency” and is ” ‘outside of the legal or practical control of local prosecutors’ and, therefore, the People cannot be deemed to be in constructive possession of that which DOCCS possesses” … . People v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05662, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: If the defendant wins a motion to dismiss the indictment, the defendant must serve the People with the dismissal order or the People’s 30-day appeal period does not start running.

Practice Point: The People do not violate their discovery obligations by failing to turn over documents which are in the possession of another agency, here the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that an upward departure from SORA risk-level two to three was warranted:

… [W]e conclude that the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is more likely to reoffend based on his bipolar diagnosis. The only evidence offered by the People at the SORA hearing was the report prepared by defendant’s expert, who opined that “impaired judgment is a common disability in Bipolar Disorder, as is impulsiveness.” The expert further opined that defendant’s “judgment was impaired by his disorder” when he committed the crimes, and that he “acted impulsively because of his then undiagnosed (and inadequately treated) illness.” The fact that defendant’s bipolar condition may have impaired his judgment and decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior when he committed the qualifying offenses does not mean, ipso facto, that he is at a greater risk of reoffending in the future as a result of his bipolar condition. Defendant’s mental illness was undiagnosed and untreated when he committed the qualifying offenses, and there is no evidence in the record indicating a reluctance or inability on defendant’s part to follow treatment recommendations and take prescribed medications now that he has been properly diagnosed.

We further conclude that an upward departure was not warranted based on defendant’s post-offense statement to one of the victims. Although the statement in question may show, as the People asserted, that defendant failed to accept responsibility for his crimes, an offender’s failure to accept responsibility is taken into account under risk factor 12 on the risk assessment instrument. Thus, an upward departure cannot be granted based on defendant’s statement … . People v Cohen, 2024 NY Slip Op 05658, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s bipolar diagnosis and a statement to the victim indicating his failure to take responsibility for the offense did not justify an upward department from SORA risk-level two to three. The evidence did not demonstrate the bipolar disorder increased the risk of reoffending and the statement was already taken into account under risk factor 12.

 

, , ,

THE NEW YORK STATUTE DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IF THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE UPON WHICH THE DESIGNATION IS BASED WAS NON-VIOLENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE WAS VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to County Court, over a five-justice concurrence, determined County Court must rule on whether defendant’s California conviction involved a violent or a non-violent sexual offense. If the facts of the case indicate the California offense was non-violent, the New York statute which requires designation of the defendant as a sexually violent offender would be unconstitutional as applied:

Defendant appeals from an order insofar as it designated him a sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Due to the designation, which is based on a felony conviction in California requiring defendant to register as a sex offender in that state, defendant is subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender in New York even though County Court determined that he is only a level one risk. The designation was made pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) insofar as it defines a sexually violent offense as including a “conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred.” Although defendant concedes that he qualifies as a sexually violent offender under the foreign registration clause of § 168-a (3) (b), he contends that the provision is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1), inasmuch as his out-of-state felony conviction was for a nonviolent offense. Defendant further contends that the foreign registration clause violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution … . * * *

If the felony of conviction, by virtue of its statutory elements … , involved sexually violent conduct, then the foreign registration clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) is not unconstitutional as applied to defendant inasmuch as he committed a violent sex offense even if it does not include all of the essential elements of one of the sexually violent offenses in New York enumerated in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a). If, however, defendant was convicted of an out-of-state felony that is nonviolent in nature, we would conclude that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to defendant … . People v Grzegorzewski, 2024 NY Slip Op 05657, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: The statute which requires defendant be designated a sexually violent offender based upon an out-of-state conviction is unconstitutional as applied if the out-of-state offense was non-violent.

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION, WHICH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION AGREEMENT, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have made restitution part of defendant’s sentence without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea or accept the enhanced sentence:

​”[A] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea” … . The People concede that the payment of restitution was not part of the cooperation/plea agreement and that defendant should have been given the opportunity to either withdraw his plea or accept the enhanced sentence of restitution. Accordingly, we must remit the matter to County Court to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or give defendant the option of withdrawing his plea before imposing the restitution … . People v Nolasco-Gutierrez, 2024 NY Slip Op 05606, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty in accordance with a cooperation agreement which did not include restitution as part of the sentence. Imposing restitution without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea required vacation of the restitution order.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S 2013 GUILTY PLEA WAS DEEMED DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGE; BECAUSE THE 2013 CONVICTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED, IT CANNOT BE A BASIS, IN 2020, FOR SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT PREDICATE FELON; SENTENCE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for resentencing, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a persistent violent predicate felon based on a 2013 guilty plea because the plea to attempted burglary second was constitutionally invalid. In the plea allocution, defendant indicated he formulated the intent to steal after he entered the dwelling, prompting the need for further questioning by the judge. The intent to steal must be formulated before entry:

During the allocution on defendant’s 2013 plea to attempted burglary in the second degree, he asserted that, although he stole property from the subject dwelling, his intent at the time he unlawfully entered the premises was to tell its occupant to close the door. Because “the intent to commit a crime in the dwelling must be contemporaneous with the entry” under the burglary statute … , defendant’s statement that he formed the requisite intent “only after [he] had entered . . . the [premises] unlawfully” negated an element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty … . This statement triggered the court’s duty to make further inquiry in order to ensure that defendant understood “the nature of the charge and that the plea [was] intelligently entered” … . The court failed to do so. To the extent that the court conducted a further inquiry, its questions did no more than establish that defendant stole property once he was inside the dwelling, without refuting his statement that he had not intended to steal the property at the time of entry, nor did defendant confirm that he wished to waive a defense on that basis … . On this record, “we cannot conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” … . Accordingly, since the requirements for enhanced sentencing have not been met, defendant’s sentence as a persistent violent felony offender must be vacated … . People v Stewart, 2024 NY Slip Op 05546, First Dept 11-12-24

Practice Point: Here it appears defense counsel demonstrated the 2013 guilty plea was unconstitutionally obtained because of an error by the sentencing judge during the allocution. Defense counsel then successfully argued the 2013 conviction could not be a basis for the 2020 sentencing of defendant as a persistent violent predicate felon. The current status of the 2013 conviction was not discussed.

 

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF RENTING OUT THE LIMOUSINE, FAILED TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD REPAIR; BRAKE FAILURE CAUSED A CRASH WHICH KILLED 20 PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, affirmed the manslaughter convictions of the defendant who was responsible for renting out a limousine which experienced catastrophic brake failure resulting in the deaths of 17 passengers, the driver and two pedestrians: The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Each argument raised by the defense was rejected after a thorough discussion of the relevant facts:

In October 2018, a stretch limousine for hire crashed at the bottom of a hill in Schoharie County, killing all 17 of its passengers, two pedestrians and the driver of the vehicle. An investigation revealed that the limousine had experienced catastrophic brake failure, attributable to protracted neglect of proper inspection, maintenance and repairs. During the relevant period, defendant was handling the day-to-day affairs of the business that rented out the limousine, including putting the vehicle into service on the day of the accident. Defendant was subsequently indicted on 20 counts of manslaughter in the second degree and 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide. Following his guilty plea to the lesser counts and later withdrawal of that plea, the matter proceeded to trial. A jury found defendant guilty of the manslaughter counts, and Supreme Court sentenced him to 20 concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years. * * *

The … proof was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the state of disrepair of the limousine’s braking system — including by avoiding proper inspection, neglecting appropriate maintenance and affirmatively rejecting necessary repairs. Given the circumstances, including the age of this oversized vehicle transporting passengers, the jury could find that defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. As the proof also made clear that such disregard was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of reasonable persons in defendant’s situation, the People proffered legally sufficient evidence to establish the required mental state for second degree manslaughter.  People v Hussain, 2024 NY Slip Op 05513, Third Dept 11-7-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to keep the brakes of a rental limousine in good repair, leading to the deaths of 20 people when the brakes failed, demonstrated disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, warranting the manslaughter convictions.

 

, ,

THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD CONVICTIONS WERE BASED ON SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS, THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT WARRANTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WHICH WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined consecutive sentences were not supported by the proof and defendant should not have been adjudicated a second felony offender based upon a New Jersey conviction of burglary in the third degree which is not a felony under New York law:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences upon his convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under count 7 of the indictment. Under Penal Law § 70.25(2), a sentence imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other . . . must run concurrently” … . Further, “sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the defendant correctly argues, and the People correctly concede, that because there was no designation of the alleged dangerous instrument used in committing the offense of assault in the second degree, the People failed to establish that this count and the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under count 7 of the indictment were based upon separate and distinct acts … . Therefore, the court erred in sentencing the defendant to consecutive prison terms on the second-degree assault count and the criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree count with respect to his possession of pepper spray … .

Further, although the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender, we consider this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6] … ). The defendant’s prior conviction of burglary in the third degree in New Jersey does not constitute a felony in New York for the purposes of enhanced sentencing … . People v Frank, 2024 NY Slip Op 05452, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: If the record does not demonstrated two convictions were based separate and distinct acts, consecutive sentences are not available.

Practice Point: The New Jersey “burglary third degree” offense is not a felony under New York law and cannot be the basis for second felony offender status.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, finding that the proof the victim suffered “serious physical injury” in this assault case insufficient, reduced defendant’s conviction from assault second to assault third. There was evidence the victim suffered a fractured jaw which was wired shut for weeks. But the evidence did not establish a “protracted impairment of health or … function of any bodily organ:”

As to the victim’s injuries, an oral surgeon who examined the victim diagnosed him with a fracture to the left side of his mandible, consistent with facial trauma, and performed a surgical procedure to wire the victim’s jaw shut. The victim testified that his jaw was wired shut for several weeks and that he was unable to eat solid food for six weeks, causing him to lose approximately 25 pounds. At the trial, which was approximately 10 months after the incident, the victim continued to experience very occasional pain that he described as similar to arthritis. Although we do not minimize the trauma and pain suffered by the victim, the record is devoid of evidence about the injury’s effect on the victim’s daily living to support a finding that he sustained a “protracted impairment of health or . . . of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10] …). Consequently, we are constrained to find that the verdict convicting defendant of assault in the second degree is against the weight of the evidence, as the record does not establish that the victim suffered a “serious physical injury,” as that term is defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (10) … . People v Dillon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05246, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision to gain some insight into what “serious physical injury” means as an element of Assault 2nd.​

 

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