You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the family offense of harassment second degree:

“A petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense” … . To establish that respondent committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree, petitioner was required to establish that respondent engaged in conduct that was intended to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner, that petitioner was alarmed or seriously annoyed by the conduct, and that the conduct served no legitimate purpose (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]). Here, the evidence presented by petitioner at the hearing consisted primarily of petitioner’s testimony that respondent posted “negative posts and stuff” on social media about him including, in particular, two posts on Facebook about an unnamed “ex” that he believed referred to him, after which respondent blocked him from viewing her posts. We conclude under the circumstances of this case that the evidence presented by petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent engaged in acts constituting harassment in the second degree … . Matter of Geremski v Berardi, 2023 NY Slip Op 04883, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment second degree was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

 

, ,

EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined 15 points should not have been assessed against the defendant under SORA for drug abuse. The evidence was too weak:

Here, we conclude that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse. Although the case summary presented by the People at the SORA hearing establishes that defendant was convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) of possessing an unknown amount of testosterone and using an anabolic steroid … , which offense occurred nearly one year after the underlying sex offense of sexual abuse of a child … , there is “no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues” and ” ‘only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug . . . abuse’ ” … . Indeed, the sole information in the record regarding defendant’s purported history of drug abuse is the “conclusory hearsay” statement … of a correctional treatment specialist—here, a licensed marriage and family therapist—who commented in the updated treatment assessment he prepared prior to defendant’s release from incarceration that defendant had “substance abuse problems with steroids pre-confinement” but that confinement had “cleaned . . . up” that problem such that defendant now understood “the repercussions of that type of abuse.” Inasmuch as the only evidence that defendant abused steroids consists of a ” ‘hearsay statement[] that [is] vague, . . . equivocal, and otherwise unsubstantiated,’ ” the People failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse … . People v Currington, 2023 NY Slip Op 04874, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the evidence purporting to demonstrate defendant had a history of drug abuse was deemed too weak to support the 15-point drug-abuse assessment under SORA.

 

,

A COURT DOES NOT LOSE JURISDICTION OVER SENTENCING A DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 390.30 IF MORE THAN A YEAR ELAPSES BETWEEN CONVICTION AND SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court did not lose jurisdiction to sentence defendant because more than a year elapsed between conviction and sentencing:

CPL 390.30 provides in relevant part that, “[i]n any case where the court determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence of probation, the court, after consultation with the prosecutor and upon the consent of the defendant, may adjourn the sentencing to a specified date and order that the defendant be placed on interim probation supervision. In no event may the sentencing be adjourned for a period exceeding one year from the date the conviction is entered, except that upon good cause shown, the court may, upon the defendant’s consent, extend the period for an additional one year where the defendant has agreed to and is still participating in a substance abuse treatment program in connection with a . . . drug court” … . … [N]othing in CPL 390.30 (6) (a) states that a failure to sentence a defendant within one year of the date of conviction is a jurisdictional defect or that sentencing after that one-year period is prohibited … . People v Bryant, 2023 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: CPL 390.30 does not deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction if more than a year elapses between conviction and sentencing.

 

,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY A CODEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW THE STATE OF MIND OF THE INVESTIGATORS QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT; THE INVESTIGATORS’ STATE OF MIND WAS NOT RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined references in a recorded interrogation of defendant to hearsay statements made by a codefendant should not have been admitted to show the state of mind of the investigators. The error was deemed harmless:

” ‘[T]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted’ ” … . In opposing the motion, the People argued, and the court agreed, that the codefendant’s statements were admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing the state of mind of the investigators, specifically, that the investigators wanted to get defendant to admit to something … . But there was no reason to show the investigators’ state of mind when they were questioning defendant using the codefendant’s statements; their state of mind was simply not relevant to any issue in the case. People v Coley, 2023 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the state of mind of the investigators questioning defendant was not relevant to any issue in the case. Therefore the investigators’ hearsay references to statements made by a codefendant should not have been admitted in evidence. The error was deemed harmless however.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WAS MADE RIGHT BEFORE JURY SELECTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT AN INQUIRY INTO THE REASON FOR IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have denied defendant’s request for new counsel without an inquiry, despite the timing of the request (right before jury selection):

“Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court denied his request for new counsel without making any inquiry” into the substance of his request, “and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request” … . It is not dispositive that the request was first raised “[s]hortly before jury selection” … . “Even though the request for new counsel may well have been a delaying tactic, . . . the court had no basis to deny the application without hearing any explanation” … . People v Hernandez-Molina, 2023 NY Slip Op 04732, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even if the judge suspects the defendant’s request for new counsel is a delay tactic, an inquiry into the reason for the request must be made, If there is no inquiry, the case will be reversed on appeal.

 

,

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE ISSUE HERE WAS RAISED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE APPEALS PROCESS BY A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was entitled to consideration of whether he should be afforded youthful offender status in spite of defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant … moved for a writ of error coram nobis contending that Supreme Court neglected to consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender treatment in connection with his conviction of assault in the first degree and that appellate counsel, in turn, was ineffective for failing to raise this issue upon the direct appeals. This Court granted defendant’s motion to the extent of reinstating defendant’s appeals … and permitting defendant to brief the youthful offender issue … .

The People concede — and we agree — that remittal is warranted. People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), which was decided before defendant was sentenced and the ensuing appellate process was completed, requires the sentencing court to make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … . Notably, a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, regardless of its validity, does not foreclose review of the sentencing court’s failure to consider youthful offender status … . Where, as here, a defendant is convicted of an armed felony … , such defendant is not automatically precluded from obtaining youthful offender status; rather, “the court is [first] required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … . “If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender”… . People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 9-21-23

Practice Point: Whether a defendant should be afforded youthful offender status can be raised on appeal, despite the waiver of appeal. Here the issue was raised after the appeals process was complete by a motion for a writ of coram nobis alleging appellate counsel was ineffective.

 

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RELEASE FROM PRE-INDICTMENT CUSTODY PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the habeas corpus petition seeking defendant-petitioner’s release from pre-indictment custody should have been granted:

… [P]etitioner demonstrated that more than 90 days elapsed from the commencement of the defendant’s confinement on April 27, 2023, until July 31, 2023, the date the petitioner made an application to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) for the defendant’s release. The Supreme Court nonetheless denied the petitioner’s application, concluding that the People were entitled to exclude an unspecified period of time attributable to a delay in satisfying their obligation to produce relevant portions of the grand jury minutes. The People asserted that this delay in complying with their obligation pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(b) was caused by a backlog on the part of a court reporter in producing the minutes. The Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the circumstances surrounding the People’s production of the minutes constituted excludable delay, whether based on exceptional circumstances or some other ground set forth in CPL 30.30(4). Among other reasons, the People failed to demonstrate that the timing of the production of the minutes was beyond their control, or that they engaged in diligent efforts to produce the outstanding discovery by their trial readiness deadline … . People ex rel. Fast v Molina, 2023 NY Slip Op 04641, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the reasons provided by the People for their inability to be ready for trial should not have been deemed adequate to meet the criteria for excludable delay pursuant to CPL 30.30.

 

,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT DEVELOPED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZING HER AND THEREFORE 20 POINTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERD RISK FACTOR 7 INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN COOK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, over a comprehensive dissent, that defendant was properly assessed 20 points because his relationship with the 13-year-old victim was deemed to have been established for the primary purpose of victimizing her. The dissent argued there was a pre-existing relationship and, therefore, defendant did not develop the relationship for the purpose of victimization:

… [T]he record indicates that the defendant did not have a long-standing preexisting relationship with the complainant’s parents, and was not involved in the complainant’s life since her infancy. Rather, the defendant had worked with the complainant’s uncle and was invited to the uncle’s house for lunch, where he met the complainant. Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from the circumstances of Cook [29 NY3d at 121]. Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, the fact that the defendant’s initial contact with the complainant was unplanned and in person, rather than through the internet, is not determinative with respect to the assessment of points under risk factor 7 based on an offender’s establishment or promotion of a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization … . The Guidelines, which were created in 1996, do not limit the assessment of points under those circumstances to situations where the offender and the victim initially met online. People v Jony, 2023 NY Slip Op 04674, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: A long-standing relationship between a defendant and a victim of sexual abuse may demonstrate the relationship was not established for the primary purpose of victimization rendering the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7 inapplicable. Here the majority concluded there was no such pre-existing relationship, but the dissent made a strong contrary argument.

 

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL PURSUANT TO CPL 180.80 BUT WAS KEPT INCARCERATED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 1/2 MONTHS; PLAINTIFF’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff sued the town because he was not released from custody pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 180.80:

CPL 180.80 “requires the release of individuals being held in pretrial detention pending action of a Grand Jury after 120 or 144 hours of custody unless, among other neutralizing circumstances, an indictment has been voted” … . * * *

The allegation that the defendant detained the plaintiff for an additional 2½ months after it was required to release him pursuant to CPL 180.80 is a very serious one. This Court notes that the defendant does not deny this allegation outright, but instead attempts to shift blame to the plaintiff for what would, if true, be its own grievous error. McKay v Town of Southampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 04664, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was not released from jail when he was eligible for release pursuant to CPL 180.80. His lawsuit against the town for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed.

 

,

A 911 CALLER WHO PROVIDES ONLY HIS FIRST NAME IS AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT AND PROVIDES THE POLICE WITH ONLY THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO INQUIRE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of suppression and dismissing the indictment, determined the 911 call was from an anonymous informant, even though the caller provided his first name. Because the informant was anonymous, the information about a black man in an orange jacket carrying a handgun gave rise only to the common-law right to inquire. One of the officer’s approached with his gun drawn and the defendant ran, discarding the jacket and handgun:

As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the 911 caller, who identified himself only by a first name, was anonymous inasmuch as he provided no other information from which the police could identify or locate him , and he was not present at the scene when the police arrived  Indeed, it is not clear from the record that the name by which the caller identified himself was the caller’s real first name. Under the circumstances, we analyze the propriety of the police conduct under the law applicable to tips from anonymous informants. * * *

… [T]he anonymous tip was simply that of a man with a gun at a particular location. It follows that the officer’s gunpoint stop of defendant was unlawful, as was the officers’ subsequent pursuit of defendant after he took flight. People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 04493, Fourth Dept 9-8-23

Practice Point: A 911 caller who only provides his first name is an anonymous informant. Any information provided by the caller triggers only a police officer’s common-law right to inquire. Here the officer approached with his gun drawn. The gun discarded when the defendant ran should have been suppressed.

 

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