You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; THEREFORE COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised several issues in the motion to vacate the conviction which were not addressed by the People’s response. Some of the issues were corroborated in an affidavit from defendant’s prior attorney. Therefore a hearing was necessary:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he is entitled to a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to fully cooperate under the terms of the 2016 cooperation agreement. A hearing is required on a CPL article 440 motion “if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief” … . In that regard, defendant averred that he consistently gave a truthful account of the burglary and had fully cooperated in the prosecution of [a codefendant] as required by the 2016 cooperation agreement, and his motion papers included a September 2016 supporting deposition from his sister and an affidavit from [his former attorney] to support those claims. Defendant also alleged specific deficiencies in counsel’s performance, namely, that counsel failed to investigate whether the Special Prosecutor’s withdrawal of the 2016 cooperation agreement was impermissibly “premised on bad faith, invidiousness, . . . dishonesty” or unconstitutional considerations and, moreover, failed to discuss the possibility of demanding a hearing on that issue with defendant … . People v Buckley, 2022 NY Slip Op 04197, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate the conviction raises substantive issues which are corroborated in some way (here with an affidavit by defendant’s prior attorney), and these substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the People’s responding papers, a hearing must be held.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted). The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, should not have subsequently stayed the dismissal and gone to trial on the promoting-prison-contraband count with the other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

, ,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family-offense petition should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Department determined the respondent met the “intimate relationship” criteria which provided Family Court with subject matter jurisdiction:

“[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … . Although Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) expressly excludes a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” from the definition of “intimate relationship,” “the legislature left it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) based upon consideration of factors such as ‘the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship'” …. .

… [T]he record demonstrated that the petitioner knew the respondent for more than 20 years, and the respondent and the petitioner’s sister held themselves out as husband and wife. During that period of time, the petitioner and the respondent engaged in general social activities at each other’s homes, attended holiday and birthday celebrations together, and traveled together. The petitioner’s sister and the respondent had a daughter together who identified the petitioner as her aunt. The petitioner resided in one of the units of a three-family home. The petitioner’s sister, the respondent, and their daughter, who was approximately 18 years old at the time of the hearing, resided in one of the other units of that three-family home. The home was owned by the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner’s sister. Under the circumstances, the Family Court should have denied the respondent’s application to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]). Matter of Charter v Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 04167, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: This case demonstrates that an “intimate relationship” which gives Family Court subject matter jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding need not be a sexual relationship.

 

,

THE 20-YEAR DURATION OF REGISTRATION AND VERIFICATION OF A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER STARTS ANEW WHEN THE OFFENDER, ALREADY REGISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE, MOVES TO NEW YORK AND NOTIFIES THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, in a matter of first impression, determined that the 20-year duration of registration and verification of a level one sex offender starts anew when a sex offender registered in another state moves to New York:

The defendant contends that the 20-year period set forth in Correction Law § 168-h(1) must be diminished by the period of time that he was registered as a sex offender in another state. We disagree and hold that the “initial date of registration” referred to in that statutory provision means the initial date of the offender’s registration with the Division of Criminal Justice Services pursuant to New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA). People v Corr, 2022 NY Slip Op 04183, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: A level one sex offender who was registered in another state before moving to New York does not get credit for the duration of the out-of-state registration.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY TERMINATED DEFENDANT’S SELF-REPRESENTATION DURING THE TRIAL BASED ON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECLINED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A MATIERAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DISCUSSED HIS MENTAL CONDITION WITH COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined defendant, who was representing himself at the time, was not deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the proceeding when the judge, outside defendant’s presence, discussed whether defendant, who apparently was in an agitated state, should be examined by a psychiatrist. Ultimately no examination was ordered. The First Department held the trial judge properly terminated defendant’s self-representation based on his behavior during the trial. In addition, the First Department concluded that a juror who apparently stated he did not wish to continue participating in the deliberations, was not grossly unqualified:

… [T]he record supports a determination that defendant’s conduct prevented the fair and orderly exposition of the issues and was disruptive to the proceedings … . During the examination of the People’s witnesses, defendant was repeatedly told by the court to “calm down,” to not get agitated, to not argue and be combative with the witnesses, and to not argue with the court regarding its rulings. The record also reflects instances where the court explained its rulings to defendant, defendant stated he understood and would then immediately engage in the same conduct. Moreover, during his testimony, the court repeatedly admonished defendant to stop making arguments to the jury. When asked twice by the court to sit down, he refused to do so. Defendant also repeatedly ignored the direction of the court officer to sit down. Instead, defendant remained standing, continued his argument and questioned the court’s ruling. Defendant also made reference to his over one-year period of pretrial detention as well as that he had a teenage son. People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 04135, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s agitated behavior during the trial was a proper ground for terminating his self-representation. The judge’s discussion with counsel, outside defendant’s presence, of defendant’s mental health was not a material stage of the proceedings. The judge properly refused to exclude a juror who, during deliberations, said he did not want to continue.

 

,

THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the photo array from which the victim identified defendant was unduly suggestive:

The hearing court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of defendant in a photo array. The photo array was unduly suggestive because defendant was the only person shown wearing “distinctive clothing . . .which fit the description” of the suspect … . Moreover, the distinctive clothing was an outstanding feature of the identifying witness’s description of the robber …  The victim told the police that he “fixated” on the “unusual shirt” the r0bber was wearing during the incident, a white shirt with a distinctive black design. In the photo array, the visible part of defendant’s shirt closely matched the robber’s shirt as described by the victim. The fillers, on the other hand, all wore shirts that, to the extent visible in the photos, were solid-colored shirts without any markings or designs. People v Sulayman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04132, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here the victim told the police the robber wore an “unusual shirt” with a black and white pattern. In the photo array from which the victim identified the defendant, the defendant was the only one with a black-and-white patterned shirt. All the fillers had solid color shirts. The array was deemed unduly suggestive and a new trial was ordered.

 

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