You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

IF A PREMATURE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH, THE STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL IS ILLUSORY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH; THE JUDGE CONSIDERED ONLY WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POST-CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, found the judge applied the wrong criteria for determining whether the People’s premature filling of the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations (CPL 245.50) rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory:

… [T]he criminal action was commenced on June 9, 2021 (see CPL 1.20 [17]). The People filed their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on August 6, 2021. On February 12, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People’s failure to provide all of the discovery required by CPL 245.20 rendered the certificate of compliance improper and the statement of readiness illusory. Defendant argued that the People should be charged with the entire eight month period and that the indictment should be dismissed (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the People’s certificate of compliance was proper because defendant had not been prejudiced by the People’s belated disclosure of certain required discovery and that the statement of readiness therefore was not illusory.

… [T]he court’s use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” … . On a CPL 30.30 motion, the question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance … . … In light of the court’s failure to consider whether the People’s certificate of compliance was filed in “good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” despite the belated discovery, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the People’s certificate of compliance was proper under the terms of CPL 245.50 and thus whether the statement of readiness was valid. People v Gaskin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01415, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: If the People file a certificate of compliance with discovery obligations before discovery is complete the readiness-for-trial statement may be rendered illusory. The judge must determine whether the certificate was filed in good faith, not whether defendant was prejudiced by the post-certificate discovery.

 

,

THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN THIS CRIMIINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined the jury should not have been instructed on constructive possession in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in instructing the jury on constructive possession because there is no view of the evidence from which a jury could have concluded that defendant constructively possessed the handgun on the night in question—i.e., that he exercised dominion or control over the handgun by a sufficient level of control over the area where it was recovered … . We further conclude that the error is not harmless inasmuch as we cannot determine whether the jury’s general verdict was based upon defendant’s actual possession of the handgun or his constructive possession of it … . People v Ross, 2023 NY Slip Op 01381, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Here is was deemed reversible error to instruct the jury on construction possession of a weapon because there was no evidence defendant exercised control over the area where the weapon was found.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICERS WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD THE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE A VISUAL ESTIMATE OF THE SPEED OF A VEHICLE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT),

The Fourth Department, granting the suppression motion and dismissing the indictment, over a dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the traffic stop. Two police officers testified the stop was based on a visual estimate of the vehicle’s speed, 40 to 45 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone. But neither officer had any training in making visual speed estimates:

It is undisputed that the officers did not use radar at any point, nor did they pace the vehicle—i.e., follow it at a consistent distance—to confirm their visual estimates before initiating the stop. When questioned regarding their training to visually estimate a vehicle’s speed without pacing, one officer stated that he did not recall receiving such training, and the other testified that he did not believe such training existed. On further questioning, one of the officers testified that he had experience visually estimating speed due to the amount of time he spent on the road as a patrol officer, but failed to provide a reasoned explanation of how the time he spent driving on city streets enabled him to acquire the ability to visually estimate speed.

… [T]he People failed to establish the officers’ training and qualifications to support their visual estimates of the speed of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger … . … [I]nasmuch as the People failed to meet their burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in stopping the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger in the first instance, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop. People v Suttles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01380, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Here the traffic stop was based on the officers’ visual estimate of speed (40 to 45 mph in a 30 mph zone). At the suppression hearing no evidence of the officers’ training or qualifications re: a visual speed estimate was presented. The People, therefore, did not prove the legality of the traffic stop.

 

,

HERE THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WITH A PEN KNIFE; THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE BUT DID NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT ISSUE; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, UPHOLDING THE RULE THAT THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF JUSTIFICATION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined the rule that evidence of a victim’s prior violent acts should not be admitted in support of the justification defense unless defendant was aware of those prior violent acts at the time of the incident. Here there was evidence the victim had four youthful offender adjudications in which the victim acted violently. The defendant stabbed the victim with a pen knife and claimed the victim was attacking him with a broken beer bottle. The trial judge instructed the jury on the justification defense:

Defendant stabbed the victim in the chest with a small knife, causing life-threatening injuries. At trial, the court determined that defendant was entitled to raise a justification defense. Defendant sought to introduce evidence of the specific violent conduct underlying four of the victim’s prior youthful offender adjudications to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor with respect to deadly physical force … . Supreme Court, in accordance with Miller, prohibited the jury from considering that evidence for that purpose. The Appellate Division affirmed … .

“Youthful Offender status provides youth four key benefits: relief from [a] record of a criminal conviction, reduced sentences, privacy from public release of the youth’s name pending the Youthful Offender determination on misdemeanor offenses only, and confidentiality of the Youthful Offender record” (Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety, and Justice 135 [2014]). Youthful offender designations are given to those who have “a real likelihood of turning their lives around,” and the protection gives these individuals “the opportunity for a fresh start, without a criminal record” … . Given these policy concerns, we see no reason to revisit the Miller rule in this case. People v Guerra, 2023 NY Slip Op 01352, CtApp 3-16-23

Practice Point: Where the defendant raised the justification defense, proof of prior violent acts by the victim is not admissible unless the defendant was aware of them at the time of the incident (not the case here).

 

,

THE UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 38 MONTHS IN SEEKING A WARRANT FOR A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE RAPIST BY THE COMPLAINANT RIGHT AWAY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the inexplicable delay in seeking a DNA sample from the defendant in this rape case violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The complainant reported the rape right away and named the defendant as the perpetrator. The defendant denied having sex with the complainant and refused to voluntarily provide a DNA sample. 38 months later the People applied for and were granted a warrant for the DNA sample. Defendant was convicted after a trial. The majority opinion went through the Taranovich (37 NY2d 442) pre-indictment-delay factors:

“Generally when there has been a protracted delay, certainly over a period of years, the burden is on the prosecution to establish good cause” … . It has not established good faith in this case. Here, 24 months are wholly unexplained by the record or any of the People’s papers in this matter and 7 months at a point late in the timeline are flimsily justified as necessary to decide the case required DNA evidence and then figure out how to get DNA evidence from defendant. The People’s own submissions demonstrate the emptiness of the claim that the police and the People did not know how to obtain defendant’s DNA and could not have figured it out sooner: not only did the assigned ADA obtain guidance on the warrant process in November of 2010—two years before the People filed their ultimately successful warrant application—but the investigator who eventually prepared the warrant application managed to figure out the procedure in part of a day. Indeed, our own case law dating back to at least 1982 provides the needed guidance on how to address this routine legal matter … . People v Regan, 2023 NY Slip Op 01353, CtApp 3-16-23

Practice Point: Although much longer pre-indictment delays have been excused, here the unexplained 38-month delay in applying for a warrant for a DNA sample from the defendant, who had been identified right away as the rapist by the complainant, violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial requiring reversal of the rape conviction.

 

PURSUANT TO THE MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) (1) DEFENDANT’S MARIHUANA CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY VACATED (2) ANOTHER CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VACATED CONVICTION (3) BUT COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER SUBSTITUTING ANOTHER CONVICTION SERVED THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing County Court, determined: (1) defendant’s marijuana conviction was properly vacated under the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA); (2) once vacated, the court had the authority to substitute a conviction for the vacated conviction (which it did); but (3) the court committed reversible error by failing to consider whether substituting a conviction served the interest of justice. The matter was remitted for the “interest of justice” ruling:

… [T]he main questions presented are whether the County Court, having vacated the defendant’s conviction under Penal Law former article 221, had the authority pursuant to CPL 440.46-a(2)(b)(ii) to substitute a conviction under Penal Law article 222 for his vacated conviction, and whether the court failed to consider if it was not in the interests of justice to do so. We hold that the court, having vacated the defendant’s conviction under Penal Law former article 221, had the authority pursuant to CPL 440.46-a(2)(b)(ii) to substitute a conviction under Penal Law article 222 for his vacated conviction. We further hold that the court committed reversible error by failing to consider, as required by the statute, whether it was not in the interests of justice to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offense. People v Graubard, 2023 NY Slip Op 01308, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: Under the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) persons convicted of marihuana offenses which have been eliminated or reduced may move to vacate the conviction. Once vacated, the statute allows the substitution of another conviction but the court must consider whether the substitution serves the interest of justice.

 

ALTHOUGH THE READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WAS TIMELY, IT WAS ILLUSORY BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN FILED; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the “speedy trial” dismissal of the indictment, noted that, although the ready-for-trial announcement was timely, it was illusory because the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations had not been filed:

… County Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Contrary to the People’s contention, their October 28, 2020 statement of readiness, which, technically, was within the speedy trial time limit, was nevertheless illusory, as they never certified their compliance with their discovery obligation under CPL 245.20 in a certificate of compliance that they were required to file with the court before or at the time they announced their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30[5]; 245.50[1], [3]). The People’s … statement of readiness was therefore insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock … , and the statutory period to declare readiness had lapsed for speedy trial purposes as of the time the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. People v Brown, 2023 NY Slip Op 01306, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: A timely ready-for-trial announcement is illusory if the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations has not been filed.

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED THEIR PURPOSE (ARREST WARRANT) BEFORE ENTERING THE APARTMENT; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted because there was no evidence the police announced their purpose (arrest warrant) before entering the apartment:

The hearing evidence supports findings as follows: The police executing the arrest warrant knocked and heard movement in the apartment but received no response, they announced that they were police and again received no response, and they then entered the apartment after finding that the door was unlocked. Only after opening the door, and after entering the apartment, a detective announced, “NYPD arrest warrant.” There was no evidence that in any way suggests that the police, before entering the apartment, attempted to satisfy the statutory requirement of giving “notice” of their “purpose” (CPL 120.80[4] …). Accordingly, the court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence at issue. People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 01262. First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: The did not comply with the statutory requirement that they announce their purpose, here the execution of an arrest warrant, before entering the apartment. The motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

,

INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People’s introduction of evidence of defendant’s two-year-old possession of a weapon conviction was not justified under the Molineux criteria. A police officer, Lafemina, who was aware of defendant’s prior firearm conviction and a parole warrant for defendant’s arrest, saw a bulge in defendant’s pocket which Lafemina thought could have been a firearm. The defendant ran when approached by Lafemina and, during the chase, entered and exited two buildings. Because Lafemina radioed that defendant may be armed, more that 100 officers responded to the chase. Defendant was charged with burglary based upon the building-entries. No firearm was recovered:

… [O]n the erroneous theory that defendant opened the door, the trial court admitted evidence that defendant was previously convicted of second-degree attempted criminal possession of a weapon ostensibly to explain Lafemina’s actions on the day defendant was arrested. We find this was improper. The trial court should have, but failed to follow the necessary two-step Molineux test: first, determine whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue, and then, if so, whether its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice to defendant. Instead, the court improperly relied on Santana [16 AD3d 346], which does not apply here because defendant never opened the door. …

The court erred by granting the People’s application before defendant raised any issues as to the propriety of the officers’ conduct or as to the accuracy of Lafemina’s belief that defendant was armed … . People v Woody, 2023 NY Slip Op 01263, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: Evidence of a prior conviction can be admitted if the defense “opens the door” to such evidence, even if the evidence would not be admissible under a Molineux analysis. Here the two-year-old firearm conviction was not admissible under Molineux and the defense did not “open the door” by questioning the propriety of the police conduct of the officer’s conclusion the bulge in defendant’s pocket indicated defendant was armed.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION WHICH CAME OUT AFTER HER APPEAL BUT BEFORE SHE APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH HELD THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE PROSECUTED BY THE “JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS” UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction based on an appellate decision which came out after her appeal but before she applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. In addition, the Third Department held the Court of Appeals decision which found the statute (Executive Law § 552 (2)) authorizing her prosecution by the “Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs” unconstitutional should not be applied retroactively:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, where the case defendant relies upon — Hodgdon [175 AD3d 65]— had not yet been decided at the time that her direct appeal was perfected, we find that her failure to challenge whether the Justice Center had permission to prosecute her and whether the District Attorney maintained responsibility of the prosecution was justified … . Therefore, County Court abused its discretion in concluding that it was “bound” to deny defendant’s motion under CPL 440.10 (2) (c), without a hearing, on the ground that defendant unjustifiably failed to raise the Hodgdon defense on direct appeal. … [W]e remit the matter to County Court for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5). …

Defendant contends … she should be entitled to the benefit of the decisions in Hodgdon and People v Viviani (36 NY3d 564 [2021]), which found that Executive Law § 552 was unconstitutional to the extent that it empowered the Justice Center with concurrent prosecutorial authority … . * * *

… [T]he holding in Viviani does not go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence … . * * *

… [D]efendant is not entitled to have the new constitutional rule articulated by Viviani applied retroactively to her matter … . People v Rice, 2023 NY Slip Op 01211, Third Dept 3-9-23

Practice Point: Defendant should have been granted a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction based on an appellate decision which came out after defendant’s appeal but before she applied for permission to appeal to the court of appeals.

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals decision which declared the statute under which defendant was prosecuted was not applied retroactively because it did not go to the hear of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence.

 

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