You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained

In reversing the pre-answer dismissal of a malicious prosecution cause of action and affirming the dismissal on an abuse of process cause of action, the Third Department explained the elements of both:

…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action. The elements of such a claim are “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . As is particularly relevant here, “[i]n order for a civilian complainant to be considered to have initiated a criminal proceeding, ‘it must be shown that [the complainant] played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act'” … .  * * *

With respect to the abuse of process claim, the three essential elements are “(1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective” … . In general, such a claim “will only lie for improperly using process after it is issued” …, and a malicious motive alone is insufficient to give rise to a cause of action to recover for abuse of process … . Here, plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint pertaining to this cause of action, even construed liberally, fail to allege that defendant actually used process improperly — either the order of protection or the arrest warrant — “in a manner inconsistent with the purpose for which it was designed” … . Place v Ciccotelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 07237, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

Defendant’s Request for New Assigned Counsel Was Not Supported by Sufficient Facts to Warrant Inquiry by the Court

In finding defendant’s request for new assigned counsel was properly denied, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

A defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon a showing of good cause, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel … . “Whether counsel is substituted is within the discretion and responsibility’ of the trial judge, and a court’s duty to consider such a motion is invoked only where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request[ ]'” … . Where a seemingly serious request is made, the trial court is obligated to conduct at least a “minimal inquiry” to determine the nature of the conflict and a possible resolution … .

In People v Porto, the Court of Appeals delineated the threshold necessary to require a court to make further inquiry, to wit, a defendant’s request to substitute counsel must contain “specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel'” … . Here, no serious complaint about counsel was raised by the defendant … . Instead, the defendant, who already had at least one prior change of counsel, stated that he wanted new counsel because he didn’t “want [his current counsel] anymore. First and foremost [he is] not helping me at all. I don’t see myself even surviving the jungle right here with him even representing me.” The defendant further stated, “I don’t want to proceed with him. And I’m going to tell you, I’m not a lawyer or nothing like that. But I think I can do better than him.” The defendant’s bare assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel, and did not create a duty of inquiry on the part of the trial court … . Under these circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request … . People v Ward, 2014 NY Slip Op 07193, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

,

Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Second Department determined defendant’s resentencing violated the Double Jeopardy clause.  Defendant had been erroneously sentenced to five years for criminal possession of a weapon when the sentence apparently should have been 15 years.  After defendant’s successful habeas corpus action, his assault conviction was vacated and he was released from prison, having served 8 years.  Two months after his release, pursuant to a resettlement proceeding to correct an error in the sentencing transcript, the defendant was resentenced to 15 years and reincarcerated:

Courts possess “the inherent power to correct their records, where the correction relates to mistakes, or errors, which may be termed clerical in their nature, or where it is made in order to conform the record to the truth” … . This inherent authority extends to circumstances “where it clearly appears that a mistake or error occurred at the time a sentence was imposed” … . However, as with resentencing, an order correcting an error in a transcript of a sentencing proceeding is subject to a temporal limitation imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution … .

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a sentence from being increased once a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality of the sentence … . “[A] legitimate expectation of finality turns on the completion of a sentence” … . Here, the resettlement of the sentencing transcript almost three years after the sentence was purportedly satisfied, and more than two months after the defendant’s release from prison in purported full satisfaction of that sentence, violated the constitutional prohibition on subjecting a criminal defendant to double jeopardy. For more than seven years after the sentence was imposed, the People represented to the defendant, and to State and federal courts, that the transcript accurately reflected a five-year sentence. Accordingly, upon his release from prison, the defendant had served out his sentence “as reasonably understood by all the parties” … . He thus acquired a legitimate expectation of finality with respect to the sentence, and the later resettlement of the transcript of the sentencing proceeding violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause … . People v Langston, 2014 NY Slip Op 07182, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

, ,

After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute

The Court of Appeals, over a concurring opinion which disagreed with the majority's grounds, determined that the four-month statute of limitations was not tolled under a “continuing harm” theory and the prohibition action was time-barred.  The trial court had declared a mistrial because, during deliberations, one of the 12 jurors was removed for misconduct.  It was clear shortly after the mistrial that the prosecution was preparing for a second trial. Two years after the mistrial was declared, the defendant brought a prohibition action seeking to prohibit the second trial on Double Jeopardy grounds:

A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings (see CPLR 217 [1]…) and the petition here was filed more than two years after the mistrial was declared. Although a tolling period for continuing harm has been recognized … and would be adopted by our concurring colleague, we reject its application in this situation. Once the People definitively demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case for eventual trial, Smith was obligated to initiate his Double Jeopardy-based article 78 challenge within the statutorily prescribed time frame. On the facts of this case, that period expired well before prohibition was sought, and therefore, the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2014 NY Slip OP 07090, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented by Counsel Before Questioning Him, Defendant’s Prior Attorney’s Statement to the Police that He Was No Longer Representing the Defendant Was Enough

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the police properly questioned the defendant without an attorney present after they were told by defendant's prior attorney that the he no longer represented the defendant. Defendant was represented on a robbery charge. After defendant indicated he had knowledge of the commission of an unrelated murder, he entered a plea bargain which promised a reduced sentence if he provided useful information about the murder.  The police who interviewed the defendant about the murder did not believe his story and the defendant did not receive a reduced sentence for the robbery.  Subsequently, the police suspected defendant was himself involved in the murder.  Before questioning the defendant, the police met with the attorney who had represented the defendant on the robbery charge.  The police did not tell the attorney why they wanted to question the defendant. The police then elicited statements from the defendant without any further inquiry about whether he was represented by counsel.  The dissent argued that there was ambiguity about the defendant's representational status, the burden was on the police to make sure the defendant was no longer represented before questioning him, and that burden was not met here:

Here, the police did have a reason — an excellent one — to believe that the attorney-client relationship had ceased: the attorney had told them so. By asking the question and getting an unequivocal answer, the police discharged their burden. It is no doubt true that they could have done more. They could have explained to [defendant's attorney] exactly why they were eager to talk to defendant, or they could have asked defendant himself whether the relationship had reached an end. Perhaps had they done so, they would have received a different answer. But the police are not required to take all imaginable steps to protect a defendant's right to counsel. Where they follow the rules laid down in our cases — rules that are, in general, highly protective of the attorney-client relationship — they need do no more … .  People v McLean, 2014 NY Slip Op 07085, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

“Outing” Confidential Informant Online Constituted Witness Tampering

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for fourth-degree witness tampering.  Defendant was present when a confidential informant purchased drugs from defendant's companion.  The transaction was videotaped.  Defendant put the surveillance tape online and identified the confidential informant on his Facebook page.  Statements on the Facebook page by the defendant and others included warnings such as “Snitches get stiches:”

The evidence, seen in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to establish that defendant knew that the confidential informant might testify in a proceeding, and that he wrongfully sought to stop her from doing so. After learning about Jackson's arrest and the confidential informant's role as a witness against Jackson and, potentially, himself, defendant immediately posted communications on the internet that the jury might have reasonably inferred were coded threats that were intended to induce the confidential informant not to testify. And in addition to the public postings on Facebook and YouTube, defendant was in contact via Facebook messages (which essentially act as email on the website) with the confidential informant and her mother. People v Horton, 2014 NY Slip Op 07088, Ct.App. 07088, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

County Court Was Not Required to Inquire Whether Defendant Wished to Seek New Counsel—Defendant’s Counsel of Choice Was Ill and County Court Ordered the Trial to Go Forward with Substitute Counsel (Selected by Defendant’s Counsel of Choice) After Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined defendant was not denied the right to his counsel of choice when County Court ordered the trial to go ahead with substitute counsel (selected by defendant's counsel of choice) because defendant's counsel of choice was ill.  The case turned on its facts.  Defendant did not request an adjournment to seek new counsel.  County Court was not required to ask the defendant whether he wished to seek new counsel:

A defendant who does not require appointed counsel has a right under both Federal and State constitutions to choose who will represent him … . “The constitutional guarantee to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing is a fundamental right” … . Nevertheless, “the right to counsel of choice is qualified, and may cede, under certain circumstances, to concerns of the efficient administration of the criminal justice system” … .

In particular, we have held that a defendant may not use the right to counsel of choice “as a means to delay judicial proceedings. The efficient administration of the criminal justice system is a critical concern to society as a whole, and unnecessary adjournments for the purpose of permitting a defendant to retain different counsel will disrupt court dockets, interfere with the right of other criminal defendants to a speedy trial, and inconvenience witnesses, jurors and opposing counsel” … . In short, appellate courts must recognize “a trial court's wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness and against the demands of its calendar” … .

Significantly, in the present case, defendant does not contend that he expressly requested new counsel … and that the request was wrongly denied. Rather, defendant's principal argument is that when he moved, through counsel, for adjournment, County Court was obliged to inquire of him whether he was in fact seeking new counsel. We disagree.

…[I]n this case, County Court did not violate any of defendant's constitutional rights by denying the adjournment motions without that inquiry. On the record before us on direct appeal …  no communication was made to County Court from which it would appear that defendant was asking for the opportunity to retain new counsel, or for an adjournment in the hope that [his counsel of choice] would recover quickly enough to become his trial counsel. Rather, defendant simply sought an adjournment to give [substitute counsel] more time to prepare. Under these circumstances, there was no obligation on the part of County Court to inquire as to whether defendant was seeking new counsel. People v O'Daniel, 2014 NY Slip Op 07087, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

Failure to Request Adverse Inference Jury Instruction Re: Missing Material Evidence, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Jude Lippman, determined defense counsel's failure to request an adverse inference jury instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.  The defendant shot four men.  He claimed the men were about to attack him with razors. A videotape which apparently would have shown the altercation had been destroyed.  The trial took place in 2009, before the ruling in People v Handy, 20 NY3d 663 (2013), which established the adverse interest charge is mandatory upon request where evidence likely to be of material importance has been destroyed by the state. The Court of Appeals found that defense counsel's failure to request the adverse inference charge, if it was a mistake, was not enough to support a claim of ineffective assistance.  Proof presented at trial was at odds with defendant's assertion he acted in self-defense:

It is well-established that the effectiveness of a representational effort is ordinarily assessed on the basis of the representation as a whole … . One error — and only one is identified here — in the context of an otherwise creditable performance by counsel generally will not suffice in support of the conclusion that the representation was not “meaningful” … or fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required by the Federal Constitution … . There are, of course, exceptional cases in which an error is so clear-cut, egregious and decisive that it will overshadow and taint the whole of the representation …, but this is not that rare sort of case. Allowing for argument's sake that counsel erred in omitting to request the charge, that lone error was not in the context of this prosecution sufficiently egregious and prejudicial to constitute a predicate for the relief now sought. The entitlement to an adverse inference charge, such as the one defendant's attorney allegedly neglected to seek, was not conclusively established until 2013 when we decided People v Handy (20 NY3d 663 [2013]). It was in Handy that we first held such a charge to be mandatory upon request “when a defendant in a criminal case, acting with due diligence, demand[ed] evidence . . . reasonably likely to be of material importance, and that evidence ha[d] been destroyed by the State” (id. at 665). Before Handy, the availability of the charge was discretionary. At the time of defendant's trial, in 2009, competent counsel would naturally have seized upon the government's unexplained failure to preserve probably material evidence to encourage an inference adverse to the prosecution and favorable to her client, precisely as defendant's trial counsel did, but there was then no legal authority absolutely entitling her client to the judicial instruction she is now faulted for not having sought (see Handy, 20 NY3d at 669-670). Perhaps it was a mistake not to seek the charge, which likely would have been given as a matter of discretion, but if it was a mistake, it was not one so obvious and unmitigated by the balance of the representational effort as singly to support a claim for ineffective assistance. * * *

We do not exclude the possibility that, post-Handy, the failure to request a Handy charge could support an ineffective assistance claim. But the viability of such a claim, conditioned upon a demonstration of prejudice attributable to counsel's inadequacy …, would depend, in crucial part, upon facts making the adverse inference Handy merely makes available at least reasonably plausible. The present facts do not meet that condition. On this record, it cannot be said that there was even a reasonable possibility, much less a reasonable probability …that the jury, if offered the opportunity, would have elected to draw an inference adverse to the prosecution as to what the missing video would have shown. People v Blake, 2014 NY Slip Op 07086, CtApp 10-21-14

 

Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender As Long As the Offender Has Not Been Convicted of Any of the Serious Offenses Enumerated in Correction Law 803

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolved a conflict among the appellate division departments about the applicability of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) to persistent felony offenders.  The court determined that the resentencing allowed by the DLRA for certain drug-related offenses is available to persistent felony offenders who have not been convicted of any of the serious crimes enumerated in Correction Law 803:

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see L 2009, ch 56, § 1, hereinafter “2009 DLRA”) provides remedial resentencing to low-level non-violent felony drug offenders who meet various basic eligibility requirements (see CPL 440.46 [1]). The 2009 DLRA, however, denies resentencing to any offender who is serving a sentence for an “exclusion offense,” which is, among other things, an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available pursuant to [Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii)]” (CPL 440.46 [5]; CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii]). Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), in turn, makes a merit time allowance unavailable to an offender who is serving a sentence imposed for any of the violent or sexual crimes specifically enumerated in that statute, without regard to the offender's predicate sentencing status (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]). That statute also prevents any offender serving a sentence “authorized for an A-I felony offense” from receiving a merit time allowance (id.), thereby denying such an allowance to anyone who has been sentenced as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [2] [a]; 70.02 [3] [a] [i]; 70.10 [2]).

In interpreting the language of these interlocking statutes, the Departments of the Appellate Division are divided over the proper answer to the following question: does the DLRA resentencing exclusion apply to all offenders who are ineligible to receive a merit time allowance, including those who cannot receive those allowances solely by virtue of their recidivist sentencing adjudications; or, to the contrary, does it apply only to offenders who have been convicted of certain serious crimes that are specifically listed in Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii) and eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance regardless of an offender's recidivist sentencing adjudication? We hold that the exclusion applies only to offenders who have been convicted of one or more of the serious crimes that automatically render merit time allowances unavailable under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), and that therefore an offender who has no such conviction may be resentenced, notwithstanding his or her adjudication as a persistent felony offender. People v Coleman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07010, CtApp 10-16-2014

 

,

Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court

The Court of Appeals determined that the speedy trial clock started running when the People's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.  The time attributable to the lower court's adjournment while the application to the Court of Appeals was pending should not have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

The parties do not dispute that under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) a new criminal action commenced when a Judge of this Court denied the People leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order. The People point to the fact that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, “[i]n computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial . . . a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: . . . appeals; . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” must be excluded (CPL 30.30 [4] [a] [emphasis added]).

The People contend therefore that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 is excludable, relying on People v Vukel (263 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 830 [1999]), which held that when a trial court orders an adjournment for control purposes because of the pendency of a defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court, the entire period of the adjournment is excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a), as time resulting from the appeal. In Vukel, the Appellate Division rejected the argument that the People have “an obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving the certificate denying leave” (id. at 417).

The mere lapse of time, following the date on which the order occasioning a retrial becomes final, does not in itself constitute a reasonable period of delay resulting from an appeal within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). Otherwise, the People would be permitted to delay retrial for the duration of an adjournment in the trial court, no matter how lengthy, even after a Judge of our Court has denied leave to appeal, without consequence under CPL 30.30. Such a rule would be inconsistent with “the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … . To the extent Vukel holds otherwise, it should not be followed. People v Wells, 2014 NY Slip Op 07012, CtApp 10-16-14

 

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