You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ THE INDICTMENT TO THE JURY TO SHOW THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF AT TRIAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE COERCION COUNT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROHIBITION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined defense counsel was properly prohibited from reading the indictment to the jury. Defense counsel sought to show that the allegations of coercion in the indictment differed from the proof presented by the People. Both the majority and the dissenter agreed that the proof of coercion was legally insufficient. Therefore the majority held defendant’s argument he should have been allowed to read the indictment to the jury was rendered moot. The dissent argued the prohibition deprived defendant of his right to present a defense:

In light of our conclusion, defendant’s contention that County Court erred in declining to charge the jury with certain lesser included offenses of coercion in the first degree has been rendered moot. The same is true with respect to defendant’s assertion that he was improperly prevented from reading the indictment to the jury during his opening statement and closing argument. That is, as limited by his appellate brief, the only particular claim articulated by defendant concerning this issue is that he should have been allowed to highlight for the jury the discrepancy between the allegation listed in the indictment relative to the coercion count and the proof expected to be presented or actually presented at trial, which is the very basis upon which that count has now been dismissed. 

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s trial strategy hinged on showing that the People had not proven the factual allegations in the indictment, and that County Court stymied that strategy by repeatedly refusing to allow defense counsel to read the indictment to the jury. County Court’s refusal to allow defense counsel to read the indictment to the jury in his opening statement violated defendant’s statutory right to “present[ ] his view of the case” in an opening statement that highlighted what he believed would be weaknesses in the People’s proof … . People v Knapp, 2023 NY Slip Op 05168, Third Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Defense counsel wanted to read the indictment to the jury to show the discrepancy between the allegations of coercion and the proof presented at trial. County Court ruled defense counsel could not read the indictment to the jury. The majority held the issue was moot because the coercion count was dismissed because the evidence was deemed legally insufficient. The dissent argued the prohibition deprived defendant of his right to put on a defense.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment should have been vacated in the interest of justice and the complaint dismissed based on documentary evidence. The loan which was the basis of the action was criminally usurious:

“CPLR 5015(a) ‘does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be vacated'” … . “In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate a default ‘for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice'” … . “[A] party is not necessarily required to establish a reasonable excuse in order to be entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice” … . * * *

The plaintiff does not dispute that the agreement effected an annual interest rate exceeding the criminally usurious threshold of 25% (see Penal Law § 190.40).

… “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, … the defendants conclusively established through the submission of the agreement that it constituted a criminally usurious loan … . Crystal Springs Capital, Inc. v Big Thicket Coin, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05121, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: A motion to vacate a default in the interest of justice does not require a reasonable excuse.

Practice Point: The usurious loan agreement justified dismissal based on documentary evidence.

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk assessment, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant had waived his due process right to be present at the hearing. Although the error was not preserved, the Second Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing … . “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . Reliable hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit, is admissible to establish waiver … . Here, the record is silent as to whether the defendant received notice of the SORA hearing and there was no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing. People v Perez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05161, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Although a defendant can waive the due process right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing, and the waiver can be proved by hearsay, here there was no evidence of a waiver and the risk assessment was reversed.

Practice Point: At issue here was defendant’s constitutional right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. Although the issue (his absence from the hearing) was not preserved, the appellate court considered the appeal in the interest of justice.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; HER SENTENCE WAS FURTHER REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s appeal-waiver was invalid and further reduced her sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act:

The County Court did not discuss the appeal waiver with the defendant until after the defendant had already admitted her guilt as part of the plea agreement … . Further, when the court raised the issue of the appeal waiver, the defendant, who had no known prior contact with the criminal justice system, advised the court that she had not discussed the waiver with her attorney, which required a pause in the proceedings to give her an opportunity to do so. These circumstances, including the defendant’s experience and background, demonstrate that the purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid … .

Pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (L 2019, ch 31, § 1; L 2019, ch 55, § 1, part WW, § 1 [eff May 14, 2019]; hereinafter the DVSJA), courts may “impose reduced alternative, less severe, sentences in certain cases involving defendants who are victims of domestic violence” … . Here, while the County Court granted the defendant’s application for an alternative sentence under the DVSJA, we find that the sentence imposed should be reduced to the extent indicated herein … . People v Heft, 2023 NY Slip Op 05148, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Defendant’s appeal waiver was deemed invalid, in part because she had not discussed the waiver with her attorney and had no prior contact with the criminal justice system.

Practice Point: Here County Court had reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act and the Second Department reduced it further.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent the matter back for a ruling on defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant’s attorney took a position adverse to the defendant’s by telling the judge the motion would not succeed. New counsel must be assigned:

Before sentencing, defendant made a written pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting, among other things, deficiencies in defense counsel’s performance with respect to the plea. The court assigned defendant new counsel, and the People opposed defendant’s motion. At the outset of the sentencing hearing, the court asked counsel if he was seeking an adjournment to supplement defendant’s pro se motion, and counsel responded: “No, I am not, and I am not adopting it because I read the People’s [opposition] and reviewed the case law on this issue and it really doesn’t seem to be worthy of asking for my client to take his plea back.” Under the circumstances, counsel took a position adverse to defendant, requiring assignment of new counsel on the motion … . People v Rivera-Santana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05101, First Dept 19-10-23

Practice Point: Here defense counsel told the judge defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea was weak, thereby taking a position adverse to defendant’s. The First Department sent the matter back for assignment of new counsel and consideration of the motion.

 

, ,

LYING TO AN INVESTIGATOR WHO RECORDS THE LIE IN A REPORT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A “FALSIFYING A BUSINESS RECORD” CHARGE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the People did not present legally sufficient evidence of the “falsifying a business record” charge. The People alleged defendant lied to the sheriff who interviewed him resulting in a false entry in the sheriff’s report. The report itself was not entered into evidence:

… [T]o meet its burden, the prosecution relied on testimony from a county sheriff’s office sergeant that, during the investigation into a shooting incident, he recorded his conversation with defendant in a report and the report became part of the business records for the sheriff’s office. The sergeant as well as additional sheriff’s deputies testified that defendant’s version of events conflicted with the concurrent observations of defendant’s gunshot wound by the members of the sheriff’s office. The People’s theory was that, by lying to the sergeant, defendant caused a false entry in the business records of the sheriff’s office. The trial testimony established, however, that the sergeant’s report was written to record the “condition or activity” of the sheriff’s office’s investigation into the shooting (Penal Law § 175.00 [2]). We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the sergeant’s report contained a false record of that investigation. Indeed, the sergeant testified that the report accurately documented defendant’s responses to the sergeant’s investigatory questions. People v Andrews, 2023 NY Slip Op 05085, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: The Appellate Division can consider an unpreserved “legally insufficient evidence” issue.

Practice Point: Lying to an investigator who records the lie in the investigation report cannot be the basis for a “falsifying a business record” charge.

 

IN ORDER FOR THE ARREST IN CORTLAND COUNTY ON A JEFFERSON COUNTY WARRANT TO BE VALID THE WARRANT MUST BE ENDORSED BY A JUDGE IN CORTLAND COUNTY BEFORE THE ARREST; HERE THE WARRANT WAS ENDORSED AFTER THE ARREST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined law enforcement in Cortland County did not have the authority to stop defendant’s vehicle and “detain” him on a Jefferson County arrest warrant which had not yet been endorsed by a town justice in Cortland County. To constitute a valid arrest, the warrant must have been endorsed in Cortland County before, not after, the arrest:

… [T]he statute provides that an arrest warrant issued by a city court, a town court, or a village court may be executed “[a]nywhere else in the state upon the written endorsement thereon of a local criminal court of the county in which the arrest is to be made” (CPL 120.70 [2] [b] …). As defendant correctly contends, inasmuch as “[t]he use of the future tense . . . indicates that the statute was intended to relate to [the] future act” of an arrest, the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that the requisite endorsement must be obtained prior to execution of a subject arrest warrant in a non-issuing or non-adjoining county … . People v Burke, 2023 NY Slip Op 05083, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: When the counties are not contiguous, the arrest in one county on a warrant issued in another county will only be valid if the out-of-county warrant is first endorsed by a judge in the county where the arrest is made.

 

,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITH LIVE WITNESSES AT WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY IN THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF HIS CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED A HEARING CONDUCTED BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-sex-offender was entitled to a live hearing on his petition for discharge from confinement pursuant to the Menta Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had ordered that the hearing be conducted by written submissions:

… Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d) requires the court to “hold an evidentiary hearing as to retention of [an offender] . . . if it appears from one of the annual submissions to the court under [§ 10.09 (c)] . . . that the [offender] has petitioned, or has not affirmatively waived the right to petition, for discharge.” Petitioner here has petitioned for annual review, and he is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing with live witness testimony where he “may, as a matter of right, testify in his . . . own behalf, call and examine other witnesses, and produce other evidence in his . . . behalf” … . Matter of Charles L. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05075, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had ordered the annual review of petitioner-sex-offender’s confinement be conducted by written submissions. Petitioner, however, pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, was entitled to a hearing with live witnesses at which he may testify.

 

,

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sheriffs did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to justify the stop of defendant’s vehicle in a mall parking lot. A deputy had seen a surveillance video showing defendant going into the mall with empty bags from a store which was not in the mall and leaving a few minutes later with items in the bags:

The deputies readily acknowledged … that bringing outside bags into the mall was not unlawful or violative of mall policy, that it was not uncommon for mall visitors to return merchandise in bags that were not from the original store, and that mall visitors could properly put merchandise into personal, non-store bags if it was paid for. The first deputy conceded that, while viewing the live surveillance video, he did not observe defendant or the other individuals stealing anything from the subject store, and the second deputy likewise acknowledged that, prior to the vehicle stop, he had not made any observations to indicate that defendant or the other individuals had failed to pay for the merchandise. Additionally, the first deputy observed defendant and the other individuals walking, not running, back to the vehicle after exiting the store, and conceded that it was possible that they had purchased the merchandise during their time in the store … . People v Mcmillon, 2023 NY Slip Op 05064, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here the deputies conceded people do bring bags from other stores into the mall and can use those bags for purchases. Therefore, without more, video surveillance of the defendant entering the mall with empty bags from a “non-mall” store and then leaving with items in the bags did not justify the subsequent vehicle-stop.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been assessed risk-factor points based on a theory which defendant was unable to respond to because it was raised for the first time at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. The matter was remanded:

… [T]he court should have found that the People acted improperly in raising, for the first time at the hearing, as the basis for scoring defendant 15 points for inflicting physical injury under risk factor 1, a new reason or theory that differed from the basis for that scoring specified in the Board’s case summary and in the People’s prehearing submissions. This deprived defendant of the proper advance, informative notice of “the reasons” and “basis” for the People seeking the 15-point determination to which he was entitled under Correction Law § 168-n (3) and due process, so as to afford him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment … People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05043, First Dept 10-5-23

Practice Point: If the People present a new risk-assessment theory at the SORA hearing, the court must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond before issuing a ruling.

 

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