You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the police were only given permission to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence, not the apartment where defendant was seized:

Well before daybreak, four armed officers knocked repeatedly on the exterior door and window of a two-family residence. Someone responded by coming to the exterior door and opening it. The officers identified themselves as police, the person moved aside, and the officers entered the vestibule. Through the doorway of the downstairs apartment, they saw the person they wished to arrest, entered that apartment, and arrested him. The question before us is whether the suppression court should have granted Mr. Cuencas’s [defendant’s] motion to suppress for lack of consent for police to enter the apartment. * * *

… [T]he officers never sought consent to enter Mr. Cuencas’s apartment — only to enter the common vestibule to speak the person who answered the exterior door. The record shows that there were separate doors inside the vestibule, one for each of the two apartments in the building, each bearing a lock, and that each door was open. When the People asked Detective Fogelman to describe how he perceived the building upon his arrival at 5:30 AM, he testified that “It may have had two apartments, an upstairs and a downstairs.” Detective Fogelman asked for consent to enter through the exterior door into the vestibule, not into either of the two apartments, and it is not disputed that Mr. Cuencas’s apartment had a door separating it from the vestibule. People v Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The person who answered the door allowed the police to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence. But consent to enter the vestibule did not constitute consent to enter the first-floor apartment where defendant was seized. The suppression motion should have been granted.

 

, , ,

​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which criminalizes the use of restraints which restrict air or blood flow is valid:

We are asked to determine whether section 10-181 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which makes criminal the use of certain restraints by police officers during an arrest, violates the New York Constitution on either preemption or due process grounds. Because section 10-181 does not conflict with state law or regulate in a field in which the state has expressly or impliedly precluded local legislation, it is a permissible exercise of local lawmaking authority. The language of the section also provides fair notice of the conduct prohibited and is sufficiently definite to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and is therefore not void for vagueness.

In July 2020, New York City Administrative Code § 10-181 became law, making it a misdemeanor offense for any “person” to “restrain an individual in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-181 [a], [b]).

… [T]he enactment of section 10-181 was spurred, in large part, by the widely publicized deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd following the use of force by police officers during their arrests … . Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of New York, Inc. v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05960, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: A NYC Administrative Code provision criminalizing restraints which restrict blood or air flow is valid and enforceable.

 

, ,

TO COMPLY WITH THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIES ABOUT A DNA PROFILE MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE FINAL STAGE OF THE DNA ANALYSIS OR MUST HAVE CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS USING ONLY THE RAW DATA; THE WITNESS HERE DID NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not demonstrate the witness through whom the DNA evidence was admitted had the necessary involvement in the DNA analysis:

We have held that “a single analyst” may testify so long as it is “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data, as opposed to a testifying analyst functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . Accordingly, testimony from an analyst is sufficient where the witness has engaged in ” ‘the final-level DNA analysis, reviewed the results of the preliminary evidence processing conducted by colleagues, produced the relevant DNA profiles, and expressed her expert opinion’ ” as to the DNA match … . …

… [T]he testifying analyst must have either participated in or directly supervised this “final” step that generates the DNA profile, or must conduct an “independent analysis” of the data used to do so in a manner that enables replication of the determinations made at that stage in order to verify the profile …. The record here fails to establish that the testifying analyst had the requisite involvement with either of the DNA profiles. People v Jordan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05957, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not demonstrate the witness testifying about defendant’s DNA profile participated in the final stage of the DNA analysis or conducted an independent analysis using only the raw data. Therefore the analysist’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.

 

,

DEFENDANT DROVE ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO GO AROUND A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING AND THEN SUDDENLY CROSSED THE DOUBLE LINE AND STRUCK A MOTORCYCLIST IN THE ONCOMING LANE; THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE “RECKLESS” CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANSLAUGHTER STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of how defendant was driving before his vehicle crossed into the oncoming lane and struck the victim’s motorcycle did not rise to the level of recklessness:

The People introduced eyewitness testimony at trial that, before the accident, defendant was tailgating a sport utility vehicle (SUV), “hitting his fist on the steering wheel[,] and looking a little agitated.” The driver and front passenger of the SUV testified that, as they made a left-hand turn, defendant passed their vehicle by driving onto the right shoulder of the two-lane roadway, yelling out that he was “going to get [them].” After defendant passed the SUV, his vehicle sharply turned left, crossed into the opposite lane, and struck the motorcycle.

… A defendant’s conduct is reckless with respect to the death of another person when the defendant “is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will result from it … . “The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

Here … the only risk-creating conduct by defendant supporting his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree was his briefly driving on the shoulder of the road to pass a vehicle in front of him that was turning and his subsequently making a sharp left turn and crossing over the double yellow line into the opposite lane. … [T]hat conduct, standing alone, did not exhibit “the kind of seriously blameworthy carelessness whose seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” necessary to establish recklessness with respect to the death of another … . People v Lavelle, 2023 NY Slip Op 05920, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The facts of this case, defendant’s suddenly crossing a double yellow line and striking a motorcyclist in the oncoming lane, do not rise to the level of “recklessness” within the meaning of the reckless manslaughter statute.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; THE MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling, noted that the failure to rule on motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial which can be raised on appeal.  People v Keane, 2023 NY Slip Op 05915, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

 

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of suppression and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing by demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. The traffic stop was justified by a DMV check showing the insurance of defendant’s vehicle had lapsed. In support of defendant’s motion to suppress, defendant presented a verification of insurance form demonstrating coverage had not lapsed. At that point the presumption that the DMV check was accurate disappeared and the People were required to demonstrate the information relied upon by the police was accurate. The People failed to so demonstrate:

… [D]efendant’s submission of the verification of insurance form in support of his supplemental motion was sufficient to challenge the presumed reliability of the information obtained by the officer that the vehicle’s registration was suspended due to an insurance lapse … . It was therefore incumbent upon the People to submit proof at the suppression hearing in addition to the officer’s testimony to establish the reliability of the information received by the officer, and the People failed to meet that burden … . People v Walker, 2023 NY Slip Op 05902, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing the People must first demonstrate the police conduct was legal. Here the traffic stop was based on a DMV check showing an insurance lapse. Defendant presented proof the insurance had not lapsed. At that point the presumption the DMV check was reliable disappeared and the People were required to show the DMV check was in fact reliable, which they failed to do. Suppression should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER WITHOUT A HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge should have granted defendant’s request for a hearing before sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. There had been no determination whether the criteria for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (at least two sentences for violent felonies within the last 10 years) had been met:

Although defendant admitted at sentencing that he had been convicted of the prior violent felony offenses alleged in the People’s persistent violent felony offender statement, defendant did not concede that he had been sentenced on at least two of those violent felonies within 10 years prior to the commission of the instant offense, and the People’s statement did not set forth the commencement date, termination date, and place of imprisonment for each period of incarceration to be used for tolling of the ten-year limitation as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Moreover, as the People correctly concede, the record does not include a specific finding by the court regarding whether there was sufficient incarceration tolling for defendant’s prior violent felony convictions to count as predicate convictions. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 05900, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s request for a hearing to determine whether the criteria for sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender should have been granted.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE GUN SHOTS AND THE 911 CALL STATING FOUR BLACK KIDS, ONE WITH A GUN, WERE WALKING AROUND JUSTIFIED APPROACHING DEFENDANT ON THE STREET AND JUSTIFIED PURSUING HIM AND SEARCHING HIM WHEN HE RAN; TWO DISSENTERS NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH THE 911 CALLER’S DESCRIPTION AND ARGUED HIS FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police lawfully approached the defendant on the street, lawfully pursued him when he ran, and lawfully searched him, recovering a handgun. The police had heard gun shots and were aware of a 911 call indicating four Black kids were walking around and one had a gun. The dissenters argued that the police were justified in approaching the defendant but that defendant’s flight did not justify the pursuit and search:

… [T]he officers, when they encountered defendant on the street, had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” … , thereby justifying a common-law approach and inquiry of all four men … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his flight when lawfully approached by the police justified the ensuing pursuit, especially considering the unorthodox manner in which he was running, which, again, was observed before the officers gave chase … . At that point, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant possessed a firearm or was otherwise involved in the shooting that occurred minutes earlier less than a block away. * * *

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant did not match the description provided by the 911 caller of the person the caller said had a gun … . Although defendant was observed walking in the general vicinity of the reported gun shots, that observation does not provide the “requisite reasonable suspicion,” i.e., “in the absence of other objective indicia of criminality that would justify pursuit” … . People v Watkins, 2023 NY Slip Op 05804, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The majority held the police properly approached the defendant on the street based upon hearing gunshots and a 911 call stating four Black kids, one with a gun, were walking around. The majority further held that defendant’s flight justified pursuit and a search of defendant’s person. Two dissenters noted that the defendant did not match the 911 caller’s description and argued his flight alone did not justify the pursuit.

 

ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE IS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE; THE TWO COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the attempted assault second conviction as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of attempted assault in the first degree. Defendant had been convicted of both: The two counts should have been submitted to the jury in the alternative. People v Roach, 2023 NY Slip Op 05872, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

 

,

THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR A WARRANT BUT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DETAINED UNTIL THE WARRANT WAS PROCURED; BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE OFFICER’S STATEMENT WAS MISLEADING; DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, suppressing the drugs found in defendant’s car and defendant’s related statements, determined the consent to search was not voluntarily given. The officer told the defendant he would be happy to apply for a warrant but defendant would be detained until the warrant was obtained. However, the officer told the defendant, if he consented to the search he would be allowed to leave, even if contraband were found. The officer did not have probable cause to search the car, so his claim he would be happy to procure a warrant was misleading:

… [T]he record establishes that defendant consented to the search of his vehicle with the understanding that, if he refused, the detective would obtain a warrant and search the vehicle anyway, and that in the meantime the vehicle would be detained at the scene. We note that a suspect’s consent to search that is based on threatened action by the police is deemed voluntary only where there are valid legal grounds for the threatened action … . Further, we agree with defendant that the voluntariness of his consent therefore turns on whether the detective could lawfully have obtained a search warrant, which may be issued “only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur” … .

In our view, the detective did not have probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime or that the vehicle contained contraband when defendant consented to the warrantless search, and, thus, the detective’s threat to obtain a search warrant was hollow and misleading. People v Barner, 2023 NY Slip Op 05839, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: If a defendant’s consent to a search is procured by a misleading statement by a police officer, the defendant’s consent is not voluntarily given.

 

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