You are here: / Criminal Law
, , , ,

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively Imposed Period of Post Release Supervision Gave Rise to Valid False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the State

In a lengthy and thorough opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that the claimant, who was imprisoned and prosecuted based upon an administratively imposed “post release supervision” (PRS) violation, was entitled to summary judgment on his false imprisonment cause of action and had stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  The claimant was held in custody and prosecuted after the Court of Appeals had ruled that only the sentencing court can impose a term of post release supervision (Garner v NYS Dept of Correctional Services, 10 NY3d 358 [2008]):

…[C]aimant sufficiently alleged that his confinement was not privileged and it was defendant’s burden to establish that its confinement of claimant after Garner was privileged; defendant failed in the Court of Claims to produce a Division of Parole arrest warrant or a court order so as to demonstrate their validity or that the arrest or confinement of claimant was privileged … .   Further, to clarify, claimant does not challenge his arrest prior to Garner but, rather, premises his claims on his continued detention and reincarceration – after Garner – for a parole violation based upon an administrativelyimposed PRS term that Garner clearly held was invalid, i.e., he raises a claim for false imprisonment and not for false arrest. * * *

…[D]efendant does not have immunity for the actions of its parole officials.  To be sure, inherently discretionary parole decisions of government officials have been recognized to be quasi-judicial decisions entitled to absolute immunity … .  “Where, however, the official has stepped outside the scope of his [or her] authority and acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or without a colorable claim of authority, there is plainly no entitlement to absolute immunity, even if the underlying acts are . . . quasi-judicial in nature” … .  That is, “[t]here is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter.  The former is privileged, the latter is not”… . * * *

We similarly conclude that claimant stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  To make out a claim for malicious prosecution, claimant must establish: “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the [claimant], (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” …. .  … On the second prong, claimant need not “demonstrate innocence” of the parole violation in order to satisfy that favorable termination prong; rather, claimant can satisfy it by showing that “there can be no further prosecution of the [alleged parole violation]” … .  We believe it self evident, under the facts here and despite the lack of state law on point, that defendant could not, after Sparber and Garner, ever lawfully prosecute claimant on a parole violation that occurred before those decisions, where the PRS in effect at the time of the alleged violation was imposed by DOCS and was, as such, a nullity… Moulton v State of New York, 515096, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

,

Expert Evidence to Explain an Adolescent’s Reactions to Sexual Abuse Properly Admitted

The Second Department determined expert testimony about “adolescent sexual abuse” was properly admitted in a sex-crime trial to explain delay in reporting, imprecise memory, accommodation, and a “flat affect” during testimony:

“Expert testimony is properly admitted if it helps to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror'” … . “[E]xpert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome, abused child syndrome or similar conditions may be admitted to explain behavior of a victim that might appear unusual or that jurors may not be expected to understand” … . The expert’s testimony was properly admitted to explain the issue of delayed disclosure and to counter the defense claim that the complainant fabricated the sexual abuse allegations when her parents objected to her having a boyfriend … . The testimony was also properly admitted to explain why the complainant did not recall with specificity when certain of the alleged incidents occurred, and why victims of adolescent sexual abuse may manifest a “flat affect” when testifying. The testimony was “general in nature and does not attempt to impermissibly prove that the charged crimes occurred” … . To the extent the expert testified as to an abuser’s behavior patterns, such testimony was admissible to help explain “why victims may accommodate abusers and why they wait before disclosing the abuse” … . People v Gopaul, 2013 NY Slip Op 08659, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

,

Burden Is on Defendant in SORA Reclassification Proceeding/Fact that Defendant Was Not Provided With All the Documents Reviewed by the Board Did Not Violate Due Process

In a SORA reclassification proceeding, the Third Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant was not deprived of due process by the SORA court’s denial of an adjournment for the purpose gathering all the documents reviewed by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in making its updated recommendation.  The Third Department noted that, unlike in the initial SORA proceeding where the burden of proof is on the People, in a reclassification proceeding the burden is on the defendant:

Correction Law § 168-o (2) provides a sex offender who is required to register pursuant to SORA with the opportunity to periodically seek a downward modification of his or her risk level classification.  However, the burden falls upon the sex offender to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a modification is warranted (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion… . * * *

We do not take issue with the argument that defendant was entitled to discovery of the materials in question.  However, all discovery is subject to certain limitations and the court has “considerable discretion to supervise the discovery process” … .  In our view, the question before us distills to whether County Court abused its discretion in refusing to adjourn the hearing in order for defendant to belatedly gain access to the requested documents. In this regard, County Court’s decision to deny defendant’s request must be evaluated with full consideration of the attendant circumstances before the court, including the timeliness thereof …, and we cannot agree that reversal is required based solely on the fact that defendant did not obtain the requested materials prior to the hearing. People v Lashway, 514859, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

Not Clear Superior Court Information (SCI) Charged Same Offense as Felony Complaint/SCI and Related Waiver of Indictment Not Valid

The Second Department determined a discrepancy between the felony complaint and the superior court information (SCI) rendered the SCI jurisdictionally defective:

Where a defendant waives the right to be prosecuted by indictment and consents to be prosecuted by SCI, the SCI “must either charge [the] defendant with the same crime as the felony complaint or a lesser included offense of that crime” (…see NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 195.10[a]…). Under the circumstances of this case, this Court cannot conclude that the defendant was charged in the SCI with the same offense with which he was charged in the felony complaint. There is a factual discrepancy between the two documents, in that they charge the defendant with assaulting two different victims, and there are insufficient surrounding facts to reveal that the assault charges actually refer to the same incident… .  People v Siminions, 2013 NY Slip Op 08670, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

 

,

Horse Deemed a “Companion Animal”/Aggravated Cruelty to Animals Conviction Upheld

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s convictions, which stemmed from the killing of a horse.  The court determined the horse was a “companion animal” within the meaning of the Agricultural and Markets Law and, therefore, the elements of aggravated cruelty to animals were proven:

…[D]efendant claims that the charge of aggravated cruelty to animals was jurisdictionally defective for failure to allege a material element of the crime, arguing that the horse was not a “companion animal” (Agricultural and Markets Law § 353a [1]…).  However, horses are excluded from the statutory definition of companion animals only when they are “‘[f]arm animal[s]’ . . . raised for commercial or subsistence purposes” (Agricultural and Markets Law § 350 [4]).  Any domesticated animal, including a horse, may be a companion animal where, as here, it is not kept for such purposes and is “normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for [it]” (Agricultural and Markets Law § 350 [5] ….  Likewise, there was no jurisdictional defect in the charge of criminal mischief in the second degree by intentionally damaging the property of another, as a companion animal is property (see Penal Law § 145.10…). People v Lohnes, 104483, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis

The Third Department determined that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because a party [Lafond] who had signed the report identifying the controlled substance defendant was accused of selling did not testify.  The court determined Lafond had nothing to do with the chemical tests and analysis.  The party who actually did the chemical tests and analysis, Brant, testified:

…Brant – the analyst who identified the oxycodone, performed the chemical tests on it, determined the nature of the substance, and authored the report – in fact testified and was subject to crossexamination … .  The report is certified pursuant to CPL 190.30 (2) with the following language: “I, Clifford E. Brant, . . . hereby certify” and then states that it is “my [i.e. Brant’s] report and contains the opinions and interpretations of the examination I performed in the above referenced case” (emphasis added).  Brant also testified that Lafond cosigned the report after an administrative review of it, as required by State Police protocol.  There is no support in the record for the proposition that Lafond examined or analyzed the substance, observed Brant doing so, or was signing the report in that capacity.  Indeed, Brant testified that after he alone performed the forensic chemical testing, he sealed, signed and dated the laboratory bag containing the pill, which remained intact as of the trial, supporting the conclusion that Lafond only read and signed the report after it was completed to ensure that proper procedure was followed …, and she had no role in ascertaining or verifying the identity of the substance in issue.  Thus, the “actual analyst who performed the tests” … and “wr[o]te [the] report[]” … testified.   We find that Lafond, who neither analyzed the substance in issue nor authored the report, was not a “witness” against defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause … and, accordingly, no Crawford violation occurred as a result of the People admitting Brant’s report into evidence without calling Lafond to testify. People v Wolz, 104909, 104910, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

New Trial Ordered: Juror Found “Grossly Unqualified” by the Trial Judge Should Have Been Dismissed/One Juror Was Absent from the Deliberations for About An Hour

The Third Department ordered a new trial was because one of the juror’s, juror No. 4 should have been dismissed after the trial court determined that the juror was “grossly unqualified,” and because deliberations continued while juror No. 4 was absent from the jury room for about an hour:

“If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . , the court must discharge such juror” (CPL 270.35 [1]…  ).  “A juror will be deemed to be grossly unqualified to serve only when, after conduct[ing] a probing, tactful inquiry into the specific circumstances, it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” … .  Although the trial court traditionally is accorded “great deference in deciding whether a juror is grossly unqualified” …, inasmuch as juror No. 4 repeatedly expressed her inability to render a decision one way or the other, and County Court expressly found that she was both grossly unqualified to serve and unable to afford either the People or defendant a fair trial, County Court erred in failing to discharge juror No. 4… .

Moreover, even assuming that we discerned no impropriety with respect to juror No. 4’s continued service on the jury, we nonetheless would be compelled to reverse defendant’s conviction and order a new trial, as it is readily apparent from the record that the jury deliberated – on at least one occasion – with fewer than 12 members present.  CPL 310.10 (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[f]ollowing the court’s charge, . . . the jury must retire to deliberate upon its verdict in a place outside the courtroom . . . and must, except as otherwise provided in [CPL 310.10 (2)], be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer.”  Consistent with the provisions of CPL 310.10 (2), “[a]t any time after the jury has been charged or commenced its deliberations, and after notice to the parties and affording such parties an opportunity to be heard on the record outside of the presence of the jury, the court may declare the deliberations to be in recess and may thereupon direct the jury to suspend its deliberations and to separate for a reasonable period of time to be specified by the court.”  Additionally, “[b]efore each recess, the court must . . . direct [the jury] not to resume its deliberations until all twelve jurors have reassembled in the designated place at the termination of the declared recess.” * * *

Here … juror No. 4 was absent from the jury room for slightly more than one hour… . People v Cridelle, 104319, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

Restitution Hearing Required/Insufficient Proof to Substantiate the Amount/Conclusory Admission by Defendant Not Enough

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a restitution hearing, noting that the record did not include proof sufficient to substantiate the restitution amount.  The defendant’s stating a dollar amount, or a conclusory admission of the amount in a plea agreement, is not enough to meet the court’s and the People’s burden:

A restitution hearing “must be held where the record lacks sufficient evidence for a court to determine the amount of restitution ordered or the defendant requests such a hearing” … .  Although a defendant’s statement at the time of the plea or sentencing can constitute sufficient evidence, that statement must include a concession of facts concerning the amount of loss; a defendant merely stating a dollar amount or making a conclusory admission as part of a plea agreement will not satisfy the court’s obligation or the People’s burden … .  At sentencing here, defendant requested a hearing.  Additionally, despite defendant’s plea agreement, including a condition that he pay a specific amount of restitution, the record does not include sufficient proof to substantiate that amount.   Thus, we must remit for a restitution hearing… . People v Johnson, 104064, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defendant Alleged He Would Not Have Pled Guilty Absent His Attorney’s Affirmative Misinformation About the Deportation Consequences of the Plea

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based on the allegation defense counsel gave defendant affirmative misinformation about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea:

Defendant’s motion to vacate sufficiently raises a question as to whether trial counsel provided him with affirmative misinformation regarding the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and adequately alleges facts that, if credited, show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s erroneous assurances in this regard, defendant would have insisted on going to trial … . Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issues raised in his CPL 440.10 (1) (h) motion and the order must, therefore, be reversed… . People v Diallo, 104609, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

,

Prosecutorial Misconduct and Defense Counsel’s Ineffectiveness Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction, in the interest of justice, finding the prosecutor’s improper comments during summation deprived defendant of a fair trial. In addition, the Second Department determined defense counsel was ineffective in eliciting inadmissible expert testimony detrimental to the defense and failing to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct:

Re: prosecutorial misconduct during summation, the Second Department wrote:

In summing up, a prosecutor “must stay within the four corners of the evidence and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . At trial, the defendant presented evidence concerning his cooperation with law enforcement authorities in drug cases against the complainants’ mother to establish that the complainants had a motive to fabricate their allegations against him. During summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to such evidence as “an elaborate attempt to distract [the jury] from the real issues in this case” … . The prosecutor also inaccurately stated that the defendant, who had testified on his own behalf, needed “a clarification about which child’s vagina he did or did not touch,” when the defendant, in fact, had asked whether the question concerned his paramour, the complainants’ mother. In addition, the prosecutor made an irrelevant and inflammatory argument intended to convince the jury that the … defendant’s denials of the sexual abuse allegations in the indictment were implicit admissions that he had abused the complainants outside the periods of time designated for the charged crimes … .Furthermore, the prosecutor impugned the defendant’s right to testify and improperly suggested that he lied on the stand, when she referred to him as “an opportunist” who “took the stand, and . . . said what he thought he had to to save himself” … . Finally, the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the credibility of a witness based on his position as a law enforcement officer … . The cumulative effect of these improper comments deprived the defendant of a fair trial … .

Re: the ineffectiveness of defense counsel, the Second Department wrote:

During cross-examination by defense counsel, the People’s expert on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome offered testimony that the truthfulness of a child’s disclosure of sexual abuse could be analyzed by looking at whether the content is specific and not age-appropriate knowledge. Despite the fact that this testimony was inadmissible …, and favorable to the People, defense counsel inexplicably asked the expert to elaborate, eliciting highly damaging testimony that a child’s allegations of oral sexual conduct, sexual contact between males, or reciprocal contact would be “rather unique and idiosyncratic,” and more believable than “just a global statement that I was touched.” Thus, defense counsel intentionally elicited inadmissible and unduly prejudicial testimony during cross-examination … . Defense counsel also was deficient in failing to object to the prosecutor’s improper remarks during summation … . The cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors deprived the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel … . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered for this reason as well. People v Mehmood, 2013 NY Slip Op 08461, 2nd Dept 12-18-13

 

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