You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing and suppression of the seized evidence and statements should have been granted. Defendant was accused of a knifepoint robbery of a gas station and was identified in a showup procedure. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the initial stop of the defendant and therefore did not establish the legality of the police conduct:

“On a motion to suppress, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” … . “Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion” … . Here, at the suppression hearing, the People failed to present any evidence establishing the basis for the police to have made the initial stop of the defendant. Thus, the People failed to carry their burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance, and all evidence recovered as a result of the unlawful stop must be suppressed … . People v Vazquez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07461, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: If, at the suppression hearing, the People do not present any evidence of the initial contact between the police and the defendant, they do not meet their burden to show the legality of the police conduct and suppression is required.

 

,

SUPPRESSION OF THE WEAPON WAS PROPERLY DENIED, BUT DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ADMITTING POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE IS RARELY APPLIED TO UPHOLD A GUILTY PLEA WHERE SUPPRSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED THE PLEA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea to possession of a weapon could not have been affected by the failure to suppress his statement admitting possession of the weapon. The Fourth Department determined the statement was a product of unwarned custodial interrogation:

‘The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . “Although the police may ask a suspect preliminary questions at a crime scene in order to find out what is transpiring . . . , where criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . Here, after defendant had been restrained and handcuffed, an officer asked defendant, “what’s going on? Are you all right? Are you okay?” Defendant responded, “you saw what I had on me. I was going to do what I had to do.” We conclude that the interaction between defendant and the officer “had traveled far beyond a ‘threshold crime scene inquiry’ ” and, under the circumstances, it was likely that the officer’s particular questions ” ‘would elicit evidence of a crime and, indeed, it did elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . …

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he [or she] states or reveals his [or her] reason for pleading guilty” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379-380 [1978]). “The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and [the Court of Appeals has] recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea’ ” … . People v Robles, 2022 NY Slip Op 07336, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: This case is rare exception to the rule that a guilty plea will not stand if a suppression motion should have been granted. Here the appellate division determined suppression of defendant’s statement admitting possession of the weapon would not have affected his decision to plead guilty because the weapon itself had not been suppressed. There was a dissent.

 

,

PHONE CALLS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON SUPPORTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE BUT NOT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined phone calls, as opposed to “contact with the protected person,” did not support the contempt first degree convictions. However the phone calls did support contempt second degree:

The … five counts of criminal contempt in the first degree … are based on evidence establishing that an order of protection had been issued against defendant for the benefit of a person and that on five occasions defendant made telephone calls from the Monroe County Jail to that person. … … With respect to those counts, the People were required to establish that defendant committed the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree … , and that he did so “by violating that part of a duly served order of protection . . . which requires the . . . defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, defendant was in jail when the calls at issue were made and the People failed to “prove[], beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had any contact with the protected person during the charged incident[s]” … . People v Caldwell, 2022 NY Slip Op 07325, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here criminal contempt first degree required proof defendant failed to “stay away” from the protected person. That portion of the order was not violated by defendant’s phone calls to the protected person (which supported convictions for criminal contempt second degree).

 

,

UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION AGAIN FOUND THE SEVEN-YEAR PREINDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, upon remittal from the Court of Appeals, determined defendant was not deprived of his right to due process by the seven-year preindictment delay. The Fourth Department had reached that same conclusion before the matter was heard by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sent the matter back because it found the Fourth Department did not correctly analyze the case under the Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]) factors:

After review of defendant’s contention upon remittitur, we conclude that he was not deprived of due process of law by the preindictment delay. In determining whether defendant was deprived of due process, we must consider the factors set forth in Taranovich, which are: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . “[N]o one factor [is] dispositive of a violation, and [there are] no formalistic precepts by which a deprivation of the right can be assessed” … , but “it is well established that the extent of the delay, standing alone, is not sufficient to warrant a reversal” … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 07407, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The seven-year preindictment delay, applying the Taranovich factors, did not deprive defendant of due process of law.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER HAD SUFFICIENT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO VISUALLY ESTIMATE THE SPEED OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SPEEDING CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People did not demonstrate the defendant was speeding. No radar gun was used and the officer estimated defendant’s speed. The People did not demonstrate the officer had sufficient training and experience to support the speed-estimate:

At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he stopped the vehicle after he visually estimated defendant’s speed at 82 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone, and there was no testimony that the officer used a radar gun to establish defendant’s speed. While it is well-settled that a qualified police officer’s testimony that he or she visually estimated the speed of a defendant’s vehicle may be sufficient to establish that a defendant exceeded the speed limit … , here, the People failed to establish the officer’s training and qualifications to support the officer’s visual estimate of the speed of defendant’s vehicle … . Thus, inasmuch as the People failed to meet their burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in stopping defendant’s vehicle in the first instance, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence and defendant’s statements obtained as a result of the traffic stop. Because our determination results in the suppression of all evidence supporting the crime charged, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Reedy, 2022 NY Slip Op 07397, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Although a police officer’s visual estimate of a vehicle’s speed may be sufficient to support a speeding conviction, the People must show the officer had sufficient training and experience to make the speed-estimate, which was lacking in this case.

 

,

AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion when they parked behind the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger such that the driver could not leave the area. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted:

Police officer testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the time the officers made the initial stop, they were responding to the sound of multiple gunshots that had originated at or near the gas station, which was known to be a high crime area. The officers also testified, however, that at no time did they visually observe the source of the gunshots, and they did not see any shots emanating from the area where defendant’s vehicle was parked. The officers’ attention was drawn to defendant’s vehicle because, at the time they arrived on the scene, it had collided with another vehicle as it tried to leave the area. Defendant’s vehicle was one of a number of vehicles and pedestrians that the police saw trying to leave the gas station due to the ongoing gunfire. Under those circumstances—i.e., where the police are unable to pinpoint the source of the gunfire, and the individuals in defendant’s vehicle are not the only potential suspects present at the scene—the evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion that the individuals in defendant’s vehicle had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime … . On the record before us, defendant’s vehicle was, at most, “simply a vehicle that was in the general vicinity of the area where the shots were heard,” which is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion … . People v Singletary, 2022 NY Slip Op 07392, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Parking a police car behind a car such that the car cannot leave is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place.

 

, ,

AT THE TIME DEFENDANT RAN AS THE POLICE APPROACHED THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE POLICE WERE GOING TO CITE DEFENDANT FOR TRESPASS OR VIOLATION OF AN OPEN-CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION BY RUNNING; DEFENDANT’S RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST; THE PEOPLE’S ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE CAUSE ARGUMENT (TRESPASS AND OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION), ALTHOUGH PRESENTED TO THE SUPPRESSION COURT, WAS NOT RULED ON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration. The People’s alternative argument (the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for trespass and violation of an open-container law), made in a post-suppression-hearing memo, could not be considered on appeal because the suppression court did not rule on it. The police approached defendant as he was sitting at a picnic table on vacant property drinking from a cup. As the police approached, defendant got up from the table and ran:

… [A]lthough the officers testified that they were planning to issue citations for violation of the open container ordinance as they approached the picnic table, there is no evidence that, when defendant jumped up from the table and attempted to run away, the officers were in the process of issuing the citations … or that they had given any directive for defendant to remain in place while they issued such citations … . The officers thus had no reasonable basis to believe that defendant had the requisite intent—i.e., the conscious objective—to prevent them from issuing citations … . * * *

… [T]he court’s determination that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration, and that the searches and seizures were incident to a lawful arrest for that offense, “was the only issue decided adversely to defendant at the trial court” … . That determination “alone constituted the ratio decidendi for upholding the legality of the [searches and seizures] and denying the suppression of evidence” (id.). Our “review, therefore, is confined to that issue alone” … . People v Tubbins, 2022 NY Slip Op 07317, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here defendant did not know the police were going to cite him for trespass and an open-container violation at the time he ran. Therefore his running was not obstruction of governmental administration and did not provide probable cause for arrest on that ground.

Practice Point: The People’s alternative argument that the police had probable cause to arrest for trespass and an open-container violation was presented to the suppression court but was not ruled on. Therefore the appellate court could not consider it.

 

THIS WAS NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS, AS OPPOSED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE ALONE, CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FLORIDA CONVICTION ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE SENTENCED AS A SECOND CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT FELONY OFFENDER; THE FLORIDA STATUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PREDICATE FELONY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s Florida conviction could not serve as a predicate felony allowing defendant to be sentenced as a second child sexual assault felony offender. This was not a circumstance where the underlying accusatory instruments, as opposed to the language of the Florida statute, can be the basis of a predicate-felony analysis. The appellate division’s analysis is comprehensive and too detailed to fairly summarize here:

We agree with defendant that consideration of the facts and circumstances of the underlying Florida conviction is impermissible in this case … . “[U]nder a narrow exception to the [general] rule, the underlying allegations must be considered when ‘the foreign statute under which the defendant was convicted renders criminal several different acts, some of which would constitute felonies and others of which would constitute only misdemeanors [or no crime] if committed in New York’ ” … . “In those circumstances, the allegations will be considered in an effort to ‘isolate and identify’ the crime of which the defendant was accused, by establishing ‘which of those discrete, mutually exclusive acts formed the basis of the charged crime’ ” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that “[b]ecause the [Florida] statute, itself, indicates that a person can be convicted of the [Florida] crime without committing an act that would qualify as a felony in New York (i.e., by [instead committing the misdemeanor of sexual misconduct]), defendant’s [Florida] conviction for [lewd or lascivious battery] was not a proper basis for a predicate felony offender adjudication” … . People v Gozdziak, 2022 NY Slip Op 07377, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here the Florida statute, and not the accusatory instruments in the Florida prosecution, is the only proper basis for the predicate-felony analysis. The Florida statute should not have served as a predicate felony to allow defendant to be sentenced as a second child sexual assault felony offender.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant in this pedestrian-vehicle-accident case was not required to disclose privileged medical (mental health) information which was provided to the sentencing court in the related criminal case as a “mitigation report:”

“CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes discovery of a party’s mental or physical condition when that party’s condition has been placed in controversy” … . Nevertheless, even where a defendant’s mental or physical condition is in controversy, discovery will be precluded if the information falls within the physician-patient privilege and the defendant has not waived that privilege … . Where the physician-patient privilege has not been waived, the party asserting the privilege may “avoid revealing the substance of confidential communications made to [his or] her physician, but may not refuse to testify as to relevant medical incidents or facts concerning [himself or] herself” … .

We agree with defendant that he did not waive the physician-patient privilege by disclosing his mental health information in the sentencing phase of the related criminal proceeding. Here, defendant submitted the mitigation report in the criminal proceeding for the court’s consideration in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Thus, this is not a case where a criminal defendant waived any privilege applicable to that defendant’s mental health records by raising a justification or other affirmative defense to be litigated in the criminal proceeding … . Instead, the mitigation report was prepared for and “submitted directly to the court[] in connection with the question of sentence” and, as a result, the mitigation report is “confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1] …). Johnson v Amadorzabala,, 2022 NY Slip Op 07355, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The defendant in this personal injury case did not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting mental health records to the sentencing court in the related criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the mitigation report was for the judge’s eyes only and was confidential.

 

,

​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign and the extended 40-minute detention and the search of the vehicle were valid. The dissenters argued that rolling through the stop sign justified only a limited detention. The facts described by the majority are too detailed to fairly summarize. When the officers stopped the car, they were aware of defendant’s legal history and parole status. The defendant was outside the geographical limit of his parole conditions: The defendant’s parole officer was called to the scene and he conducted a search of the car pursuant to parole rules:

Defendant’s multiple and inconsistent explanations about his travels, which the police officers knew were false, coupled with his parole situation and his nervous demeanor throughout the encounter, combined to give the officers a founded suspicion of criminality … . As such, the police officers were authorized to extend the scope of the stop beyond its original justification by requesting consent to search defendant’s vehicle and, upon denial, detaining defendant to await a canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior … . * * *

Given that defendant was placed on lifetime parole in 1999 due to illegal narcotics activity, we conclude that Pirozzolo’s [the parole officer’s] decision to search the vehicle was reasonable and substantially related to the performance of his duties … .

From the dissent:

Defendant did give conflicting answers in response to [officer] Linehan’s inquiry, and County Court found that such answers, coupled with defendant’s nervous demeanor and parole status, gave Linehan founded suspicion that criminality was afoot. These answers and behavior by defendant, however, came after the initial justification for stopping and detaining defendant had already dissipated … . Indeed, between the time when Linehan effectuated the traffic stop and processed defendant’s license and registration, Linehan did not observe anything suspicious by defendant so as to give him founded suspicion that criminality was afoot in order to continue defendant’s detention … . People v Thomas, 2022 NY Slip Op 07263, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the majority concluded the traffic stop, the 40-minute detention, calling the defendant’s parole officer, and the search of the car by the parole officer, were valid. Two dissenters argued only the limited initial detention related to the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign was justified.

 

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