You are here: / Criminal Law

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

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