You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

Drug Treatment and Drug Testing Facilities Do Not Have a Duty to Provide the Test Results With a Disclaimer Indicating the Tests Were Done According to “Clinical,” Not “Forensic,” Standards—Here the “Clinical” Results Were Disseminated and Used In Court Proceedings

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, with a concurring memorandum, determined that a substance abuse treatment facility (Daytop) and a drug testing laboratory (Bendiner) could not be liable for damages stemming from the dissemination of the results of drug tests (affecting Family Court and Drug Court proceedings).  The plaintiffs did not claim that the testing procedures were flawed or that the test results were false.  Rather, they claimed that, because the tests were done for “clinical,” not “forensic,” purposes, the results should have included a disclaimer indicating that they should not be used in court proceedings.  The Second Department refused to extend the duty owed to the plaintiffs by the defendants beyond the duty to ensure accurate test results:

Landon (91 AD3d 79, aff’d 22 NY3d 1) makes clear that there is a duty running from a drug testing laboratory to the subject of a drug test despite the lack of a contractual relationship between those parties. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that Daytop owes some duty of reasonable care to individuals it treats. The question presented here, as to both defendants, concerns the proper scope of that duty. More particularly, the question is whether the defendants’ duty of reasonable care includes the duty to label or place a disclaimer on a report, so as to indicate that the results are to be used only for clinical purposes. * * *

We conclude … that Bendiner did not have a duty to the plaintiffs to label its drug test results with a disclaimer, and that Daytop, when reporting the results to the drug treatment courts, did not have a duty to the plaintiffs to provide a disclaimer indicating that the positive test results were to be used for clinical purposes only.  Braverman v Bendiner & Schlesinger Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05618, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

Sentence for Weapons Charge Should Have Been Imposed Concurrently with the Sentence for Manslaughter—No Evidence the Possession of the Weapon Was Unrelated to the Manslaughter

The Second Department determined the sentence for the weapons charge should not run consecutively with the sentence for the manslaughter charge because there was no evidence the weapon was possessed for reasons unrelated to the manslaughter:

The Supreme Court erred in directing that the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree with the intent to use it unlawfully against another, pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b), was to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. The evidence adduced at trial did not demonstrate that the defendant possessed the gun with a purpose unrelated to his intent to use it against the victim (see Penal Law § 70.25[2]…). Therefore, the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree with the intent to use it unlawfully against another, pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b), must run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. People v Fitzgerald, 2014 NY Slip Op 05649, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Closed Box Properly Seized and Searched Under the Plain View Doctrine

The Second Department determined a police officer properly seized evidence under the plain view doctrine.  The box that was seized and opened had the words “Smith & Wesson” on it:

Here, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer was lawfully present in the apartment building where the defendant resided … . The officer discovered the challenged physical evidence, a handgun and ammunition, in a gun box located in a common storage area accessible to anyone in the building. The box was not locked, and there was no indication that the defendant’s name or other personal identification, such as his apartment number, was on the box which would lead one who observed it to understand that it belonged to the defendant or a person living in his apartment … . The box was clearly marked “Smith and Wesson.” Under these circumstances, the distinctive label on the outside of the box “proclaimed [its] contents” and, as such, made it immediately apparent to the officer that the box contained a firearm …, thus authorizing the officer to seize the box without a warrant … . Furthermore, since the gun box, “by its very nature, could not support any reasonable expectation of privacy because its content could be inferred from its outward appearance” … , the officer lawfully opened the box, and discovered the handgun and ammunition inside. People v John, 2014 NY Slip Op 05653, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

Speedy Trial Clock Starts Running Only On the Charges Included in the Original Felony Complaint, Not On Separate and Distinct Charges Ultimately Included in the Indictment

The Second Department determined defendant’s “speedy trial” motion to dismiss certain counts of the indictment should not have been granted.  Although the speedy trial clock started to run when the felony complaint was filed for the charges in the felony complaint, it did not start to run on the new charges appearing for the first time in the indictment:

Where a defendant is charged with a felony, CPL 30.30 requires the People to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30[1][a]…). A criminal action is commenced when the first accusatory instrument is filed, and “includes the filing of all further accusatory instruments directly derived from the initial one” (CPL 1.20[16][b]…). Therefore, subsequent accusatory instruments that are “directly derived” from the first instrument will relate back to the first instrument for purposes of assessing the People’s compliance with their speedy trial obligations … . The filing of a felony complaint signals the commencement of a criminal action (see CPL 1.20[1], [17]). Where, however, “the felony complaint and subsequently filed indictment allege separate and distinct criminal transactions, the speedy trial time clock commences to run upon the filing of the indictment with respect to the new charges” … . People v Sant, 2014 NY Slip Op 05658, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Grand Jury Testimony Given a Year After the Relevant Event Should Not Have Been Admitted as “Past Recollection Recorded”—New Trial Ordered

After noting that the defendant, who refused to sign a written waiver of his right to remain silent, waived the right by agreeing to speak to the police, the Second Department determined grand jury testimony, given a year after the relevant event, should not have been allowed in evidence as past recollection recorded:

“The requirements for admission of a memorandum of a past recollection are generally stated to be that the witness observed the matter recorded, the recollection was fairly fresh when recorded or adopted, the witness can presently testify that the record correctly represented his [or her] knowledge and recollection when made, and the witness lacks sufficient present recollection of the recorded information” … . In light of the one-year gap between the time the witness allegedly heard the defendant’s alleged inculpatory statements and the witness’s grand jury testimony, the People failed to establish that the witness’s recollection of the matter was “fairly fresh when recorded or adopted” during the grand jury proceeding … . People v Wilkinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05661, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Jury Be Charged with an Affirmative Defense to Robbery First (Weapon Was Not Capable of Being Discharged) Constituted Ineffective Assistance

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s failure to request that the jury be charged with an affirmative defense constituted ineffective assistance:

…[T]he defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, under both the federal and state constitutions, as a result of his trial counsel’s failure to request that the trial court submit to the jury the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree that the object that appeared to be a firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged (see Penal Law § 160.15[4]…). “[T]he New York State constitutional standard for the effective assistance of counsel is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case'” … . Thus, denial of a defendant’s fundamental right to counsel generally requires reversal of the conviction and a new trial… . People v Collins, 2014 NY Slip Op 05555, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

,

Clause in Appeal-Waiver Agreement Which Purported to Vacate Plea and Sentence Upon the Filing of a Notice of Appeal Unenforceable

The First Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not adequately explained by the sentencing court and further determined a clause in the waiver agreement is unenforceable.  The Clause purported to vacate the plea and sentence if a notice of appeal is filed:

,,,[W]e agree with defendant that the clause in the waiver agreement that purportedly treats the filing of a notice of appeal by defendant as a motion to vacate the judgment to be unenforceable. Specifically, the waiver form included the following clause:

“If the defendant or the defendant’s attorney files a notice of appeal that is not limited by a statement to the effect that the appeal is solely with respect to a constitutional speedy trial claim or legality of the sentence, they agree that the District Attorney and or Court may deemed such filing to be a motion by the defendant to vacate the conviction and sentence, and will result, upon the application and consent of the District Attorney, in the plea and sentence being vacated and this indictment being restored to its pre-pleading status.”

This clause is unenforceable because there is no statutory authority to vacate a judgment under these circumstances (CPL 440.10,,,).

Further, this language discourages defendants from filing notices of appeal even when they have claims that cannot be waived, such as one concerning the lawfulness of the waiver or the plea agreement itself. “[A]n agreement to waive appeal does not foreclose appellate review in all situations” … . If the agreement to waive were itself sufficient to foreclose appellate review, “the court would then be deprived of the very jurisdictional predicate it needs as a vehicle for reviewing the issues that survive the waiver” … . The language in the written waiver, in essence, purports to prevent appellate claims that have been found by the courts to be “unwaivable” precisely because of their constitutional import … . People v Santiago 2014 NY Slip Op 05493, 1st Dept 7-24-14

 

,

People Failed to Demonstrate Seizure of Heroin from Defendant’s Impounded Vehicle Was Pursuant to a Standard Inventory Search—Heroin Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that heroin seized from inside defendant’s vehicle after a stop for speeding should have been suppressed.  The defendant was arrested at the scene of the stop based upon an outstanding warrant. The People failed to demonstrate the heroin was found pursuant to a standard inventory search of the impounded vehicle:

Following a lawful arrest of the driver of a vehicle, “the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to ‘reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith'” … . To this end, “courts have insisted that an inventory search be conducted according to a familiar routine procedure and that the procedure meet two standards of reasonableness” … . Specifically, the procedures must be “designed to meet the legitimate objectives of the search while limiting the discretion of the officer in the field” … .

Here, the transcript of the … suppression hearing fails to support a determination that the conduct of the police was reasonable. Although not fatal to their argument against suppression …, the People failed to offer a copy of the State Police procedure manual into evidence. Additionally, the People also failed to ask any substantive questions of their witnesses so as to otherwise establish (1) that the State Police had a standardized procedure, (2) that such procedure was reasonable, and (3) that it was followed here. People v Leonard, 2014 NY Slip Op 05468, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

Parole Board’s Role and Court’s Review Role Explained in Depth

The Third Department, in an extensive and detailed decision, over a dissent, determined petitioner had been properly denied parole, despite his extraordinary achievements in prison, including his earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees.  The petitioner was convicted of felony murder in connection with the death of a police officer:

[T]he record establishes that the Board acknowledged petitioner’s extensive rehabilitative success along with the additional statutory factors, but placed greater emphasis on the seriousness of petitioner’s crime in its determination that release would be incompatible with the welfare of society and so deprecate the seriousness of the crime as to undermine respect for the law, as it is “entitled” to do … . We are thus constrained to affirm — to do otherwise is to implicitly overrule the decades of our well-settled jurisprudence set forth above … . Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div of Parole, 2014 NY Slip Op 05487, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

, ,

Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned

The First Department reversed defendant's murder conviction in the interests of justice because of a confusing jury instruction.  The trial court did not make it clear to the jurors that the use of deadly force can be justified in defense of a robbery.   The First Department also noted that defendant's lawyer should have been allowed to testify at the suppression hearing because it was alleged the lawyer called the police station, informed officer Risorto he was representing defendant, and told officer Risorto the defendant should not be questioned:

In its main charge, the court instructed the jury that “[t]he only difference between the law of self-defense to repel a robbery as opposed to assault [is that] in repelling the robbery, the person has no duty to retreat.” This is an incorrect statement of the law because it ignores an additional critical difference between the two grounds for justification, namely, that deadly physical force may be permissible to defend against a robbery even if the alleged robber is using only physical force, and not deadly physical force (see People v Fuller, 74 AD2d at 879 [“a person is justified in using deadly physical force if he reasonably believed it necessary to use such force in order to resist his victim's imminent use of [mere] physical force against himself, in the course of a robbery attempt”]; People v Davis, 74 AD2d 607, 609 [2d Dept 1980] [jury should have been told that the defendant was justified in using deadly physical force if he reasonably believed it necessary to do so to resist the imminent use of physical force against him in the course of a robbery attempt]). The court's error was exacerbated when it repeated this erroneous statement in response to a jury note requesting further instructions on the defense of justification. * * *

The Court of Appeals has held that “an attorney enters a criminal matter and triggers the indelible right to counsel when the attorney . . . notifies the police that the suspect is represented by counsel” … . Once the police have reason to know that the suspect is represented by counsel in the case under investigation, the right to counsel cannot be waived unless the suspect does so in the presence of counsel … . An attorney does not need to enter the case in person, but can communicate his representation to the police by phone, “at which point the police are required to cease all questioning” … .

Here, the court erred in precluding defense counsel from testifying about the critical conversation with Risorto. The police testimony, along with defense counsel's affirmation, raised questions as to what defense counsel actually said to Risorto and, in particular, whether defense counsel told Risorto that he “represented” defendant in the case for which defendant was to be questioned. The court should not have made a factual finding that implicitly accepted Risorto's account, without giving defendant the opportunity to challenge that account. People v McTiernan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05363, 1st Dept 7-17-14

 

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