You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the robbery-related convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the police did not have a lawful basis for removing a wallet from defendant’s pocket and examining its contents. There was no evidence that the lawful frisk of the defendant indicated the presence of a weapon. The wallet, which had been stolen from the victim, should have been suppressed. Because the robber was wearing a mask, finding the wallet on defendant’s person tended to identify defendant as the robber. The error in failing to suppress the wallet, therefore, was not harmless:

… [E]ven assuming that the officers were justified in performing a protective frisk … , there was no justification for searching the defendant’s pants pocket, reaching into it, and removing the wallet. In the course of conducting a protective pat-down based upon reasonable suspicion, “[o]nce an officer has concluded that no weapon is present, the search is over and there is no authority for further intrusion” … . There was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that, during his frisk of the defendant, Nelson [the police officer] felt anything in the defendant’s pocket that seemed to be a weapon or that could have posed a danger to the officers at the scene. Indeed, Nelson did not testify at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for removing the wallet from the defendant’s pocket … , and that act violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … . The officers committed an additional constitutional violation when, after retrieving the wallet from the defendant’s pocket, they opened it and conducted a warrantless search of its contents … . Since the officers lacked the factual predicate necessary to search the defendant’s pocket and the wallet’s contents, the People failed to satisfy their burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, and thus the wallet and its contents, seized as a result of that search, should have been suppressed … . People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 05823, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: If a street frisk does not indicate the presence of a weapon, the seizure and examination of a wallet found in defendant’s pocket has no lawful basis.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR BAIL; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT MAKING THE REQUIRED FLIGHT RISK DETERMINATION; DEFENDANT FILED A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; PETITION HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW SECURING ORDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined the habeas petition should be held in abeyance and a new securing order which complies with Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 510.10 should be issued:

While awaiting retrial after his criminal conviction was reversed on appeal, defendant Diego Guerra applied for a new securing order under the current version of the bail law. That statute requires a court to “make an individualized determination” as to the defendant’s flight risk and to “explain the basis for its determination and its choice of securing order on the record or in writing” (CPL 510.10 [1]; see also 530.40 [4]). Supreme Court ordered the defendant remanded to custody but neither explained that decision nor made an explicit determination as to flight risk.

Defense counsel filed this habeas petition in the Appellate Division, and we now review that Court’s dismissal of the writ. We conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion by failing to make an individualized flight risk determination and to explain both the basis for that determination and the choice of securing order, as required by statute. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Appellate Division for issuance of a new securing order in compliance with CPL 510.10. People ex rel. Kon v Lynelle Maginley-Liddie, 2025 NY Slip Op 05785, CtApp 10-21-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to CPL 510.10, in denying a request for bail, the judge must make an individualized flight-risk determination and explain the basis of that determination and the choice of securing order. The failure to comply with those statutory requirements is an abuse of discretion.

 

,

DEFENDANT TOOK A CELL PHONE PICTURE OF THE VICTIM IN THE SHOWER THROUGH A HIGH WINDOW; HE CLAIMED THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN ACCIDENTALLY WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO PHOTOGRAPH LIGHTNING; DEFENDANT, IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION BY THE POLICE ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A “PATTERN,” ADMITTED HE HAD SURREPTITIOUSLY TAKEN SIMILAR PHOTOS OF HIS WIFE; THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF HIS APPARENT ADMISSION TO A “PATTERN” OF SIMILAR BEHAVIOR OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE EFFECT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that prior bad act “Molineux” evidence should not have been admitted because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Defendant, using his cell phone, had taken a picture of the victim in the shower through a high window. In his interview with the police defendant admitted taking similar pictures of his wife: “When confronted with a conversation that law enforcement allegedly had with his wife and whether the subject conduct was in fact part of a ‘pattern,’ defendant … admitted that he had previously engaged in similar surreptitious photography of his wife.” Defendant claimed the picture of the victim was taken accidentally when he was trying to photograph lightning:

[From the police interview with defendant:] “Now what’s the deal with when I asked your wife if this has been an issue in the past, she says you’ve done it to her, the exact same thing in the shower, and you guys have had blowouts,” adding, “So this has been a pattern, you know, it’s not like it was an accidental lightning strike thing.” Defendant replied, “I understand that. Yes, it’s my wife. I’m madly in love with her. I think she’s absolutely beautiful. Yeah, I’ve done that to my wife.” * * *

A criminal purpose cannot be readily inferred from the generally equivocal act of taking a photograph, later deleted, in the location where defendant was standing. Thus, defendant’s admission to previously taking surreptitious photographs of another woman while she showered because of his sexual interest in her was directly relevant to that legitimate nonpropensity issue … . Further, by inserting an innocent explanation for the charged conduct into the case, defendant’s prior similar acts had obvious relevance as tending to refute the possibility of mistake or accident … . * * *

… [A]lthough the challenged prior bad act evidence was highly probative with respect to the foregoing legitimate purposes, there is no way around the fact that the gratuitous “pattern” allegation made by law enforcement while questioning defendant substantially tipped the scale. It was an abuse of discretion not to redact that portion of the interview, together with defendant’s ambiguous “I understand that” response, prior to admitting the recording into evidence — particularly in view of how excisable it was. People v Siciliano, 2025 NY Slip Op 05721, Third Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of evidence which fits a Molineux category [here a seeming admission to a “pattern” of taking surreptitious photos of women in the shower to counter defendant’s claim the photo of the victim in the shower was taken accidentally], but is inadmissible because the evidence is more prejudicial than probative.

 

, ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S AND THE CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEYS SHARED THE SAME OFFICE AND WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER REQUIRED A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION; DEFENDANT ARGUED HE WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground that his attorney was ineffective because of a conflict of interest between his attorney and the codefendant’s attorney. The two attorneys (Reilly and Roberts) have the same address and there was evidence that they worked closely together, even if they were not members of the same firm:

… [W]hen “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised upon a perceived conflict of interest, the law draws a distinction between actual and potential conflicts” … . First, “[a]n actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict” … . The same is true for attorneys associated with the same firm simultaneously representing clients in a criminal matter … . Alternatively, where a potential conflict exists, reversal is only required where “a defendant shows that a potential conflict actually operated on the conduct of [the] defense” … . * * *

… County Court … recognized that it was undisputed that Reilly and Roberts maintained the same address for their law practice. Each of the affidavits in support further reflected that the attorneys gave the impression that they were associated in the same law firm or that they had worked closely with each other. Both defendant and the codefendant acknowledged that they were not advised of a potential conflict of interest, and our review of the record fails to reveal any consent or waiver by defendant for such alleged conflicts. While it is true that defendant failed to provide an affidavit from either attorney, or explain why he was unable to obtain same, this is not automatically fatal to his motion — particularly where many of the facts are corroborated in the record … . This is particularly true considering that the codefendant alleged his speedy trial challenge was waived by Roberts to allow defendant to accept a plea and be sentenced, demonstrating that Reilly and Roberts had been at least aware of each other’s strategy in resolving the charges against their respective client. Yet, there exists a stark contrast of the sentences between defendant, who received 12 years of incarceration with 5 years of postrelease supervision, and the codefendant, who allegedly received time served. These differences are not explained in the record before us, and give rise to questions of fact about whether the relationship between Reilly and Roberts may have operated on the defense by impairing the best strategy for defendant … . People v Rasul, 2025 NY Slip Op 05722, Third Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Defendant moved to vacate his conviction on the ground he was deprived effective assistance of counsel because of a conflict of interest. There was evidence his and the codefendant’s attorneys shared the same address and worked closely together. The nonrecord evidence of a potential conflict of interest required a hearing.

 

, ,

THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE HANDGUN FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the search of defendant’s vehicle was not a valid inventory search and the handgun should have been suppressed:

“To be constitutionally valid, an inventory search must be [reasonable and] conducted according to a familiar routine procedure” … . The established procedure should be designed to “meet the legitimate objectives of the search,” such as protecting the owner’s property and insuring police against claims of lost or stolen property, “while limiting the discretion of the officer in the field”. Here, the second deputy failed to adhere to the requirements set forth in the relevant inventory policy. Namely, he did not obtain the approval of his shift supervisor before beginning the alleged inventory procedure. Further, although not explicitly written in the policy, the second deputy also admitted that he deviated from normal procedure when he failed to complete the inventory report as he conducted the inventory.  People v Grandoit, 2025 NY Slip Op 05720, Third Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the legitimacy of an inventory search is determined by a reviewing court.​

 

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ELEMENTS OF A CHARGED OFFENSE RESULTED IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENDANT WHICH PROVED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to understand the nature of one of the criminal charges and presenting evidence which proved defendant’s commission of the charged offense. “Penal Law § 120.05(7) provides that a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when “[h]aving been charged with or convicted of a crime and while confined in a correctional facility, . . . with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person” … . Defendant presented evidence he intended to punch another inmate but struck a corrections officer, thereby proving all the elements of the offense:

… [T]he record reveals that defense counsel’s trial strategy rested on the erroneous theory that defendant could not be found guilty of the charged offense if it could be proved that the correction officer was not the intended target of the assault. At trial, defense counsel called his client to testify. Defendant testified that while incarcerated, he became involved in an altercation with another inmate. He explained that during the encounter, he threw a “sucker punch” at that inmate, but in so doing, struck the correction officer instead. Defendant averred that the correction officer was not his intended target.

During summation, defense counsel compounded this error by incorrectly stating the required elements of Penal Law § 120.05(7) and declaring that in order to find defendant guilty of the charge, it must be proved that defendant intended to hit the correction officer. However, proving that the intended target of the assault was the correction officer is not a material element of the crime charged. Thus, counsel’s defense strategy constituted an admission to the jury of the elements necessary to prove the assault in the second-degree count (see Penal Law § 120.05[7]). Moreover, defense counsel’s argument to the court that he did not believe that the prosecution could amend its theory based on defendant’s testimony demonstrated yet another critical misunderstanding, of settled New York law that pertained to the entire defense strategy … . People v Calderon, 2025 NY Slip Op 05755, First Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here, defense counsel’s failure to understand the elements of a charged offense constituted ineffective assistance, resulting in reversal and a new trial.​

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED BY A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY LAW; THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Fourth Department, determined the court was without authority to appoint a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The defendant, who was convicted, raised the issue for the first time on direct appeal. The indictment was dismissed:

Defendant was charged in Orleans County with various counts of larceny based on allegations that he improperly sold a vehicle that was given to him for repairs and retained the proceeds. The Orleans County District Attorney moved to be disqualified from the case due to his relationship with the alleged victim. County Court granted the application and appointed a special district attorney pursuant to County Law § 701 (1) (a). That statute provides that when the district attorney is disqualified from acting in a particular case, “a superior criminal court in the county wherein the action is triable may . . . appoint some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney during the absence, inability or disqualification of the district attorney and such assistants as he or she may have.”

It is undisputed that the special district attorney did not have an office in or reside in Orleans County or any adjoining county and therefore did not satisfy the statute’s residency requirement. Although defendant received correspondence during the course of the prosecution that listed addresses for the special district attorney located in Erie County—which does not adjoin Orleans County—defendant did not challenge the special district attorney’s appointment or otherwise raise the issue before the trial court. After defendant was convicted, however, he raised the issue on direct appeal. The Appellate Division agreed with defendant that the court exceeded its authority by appointing a special district attorney who did not satisfy the residency requirement and dismissed the indictment on this ground … .  People v Callara, 2025 NY Slip Op 05739, CtApp 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here defendant was prosecuted and convicted by a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The issue was first raised on appeal. The appellate court properly dismissed the indictment because the lower court did not have the authority to appoint a special district attorney in violation of the residency provisions of the County Law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED BY CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S SUMMATION-ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS A SHOOTER AND THE CODEFENDANT WAS NOT; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT POINT TO THAT CONCLUSION AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT SUMMATIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, affirming the Fourth Department, determined that the trial judge properly denied the defendant’s motion to sever the trials of the codefendants. The charges stemmed from a drive-by shooting in which two guns were fired. The trial evidence did not demonstrate defendant’s lack of involvement. In summation the codefendant’s attorney argued defendant was one of the shooters and the codefendant was not:

Where counsel for a codefendant essentially functioned as “a second prosecutor” and elicited damaging evidence against the defendant, we have held that severance was required based on the “compelling prejudice” to the defendant … . No similar degree of prejudice was created by codefendant’s closing argument here.

… [D]efendant raised the specter of a potential irreconcilable conflict between the defenses prior to trial, but apart from the comments made in summation, the defenses were remarkably consistent in their primary focus on discrediting the eyewitness. Although Bordies’ [the codefendant’s] argument that the evidence supported the conclusion that defendant was guilty was diametrically opposed to defendant’s claim of innocence, this type of discord emerging between codefendants only in summation did not rise to the level of an irreconcilable conflict for purposes of severance in these particular circumstances.

Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the attorneys’ arguments were not evidence and should not be considered as evidence when they judged the facts. That being so, and given that the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions … , any conflict raised solely by counsel’s arguments could not have formed the basis of the jury’s verdict. In sum, there was no “undue” prejudice to defendant. People v Everson, 2025 NY Slip Op 05738, CtApp 10-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when the severance of codefendants’ trials is required and when it is not.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT SAID “HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT …” AND THE POLICE STOPPED QUESTIONING HIM; AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER THE POLICE RESUMED QUESTIONING WITHOUT RE-READING THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to remain silent should have suppressed. The questioning stopped after defendant said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. The questioning resumed an hour and a half later without a re-reading of defendant’s Miranda rights:

… [A]fter the police told defendant that they considered him a suspect in the underlying shooting and asked him “for his side of the story,” defendant continually stated that “he didn’t want to talk about that and [that] he’d rather take his chances.” We conclude that defendant thereby unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent … inasmuch as “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . Indeed, the actions of the police in response to defendant’s statement demonstrated that they understood his statement to be an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent—i.e., they promptly ceased their questioning of defendant and left the interrogation room for a prolonged period of time … . Defendant’s responses to a police officer when the officer resumed the interrogation—which occurred about an hour and a half after the prior questioning ceased—did not negate defendant’s prior unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent because the police officer failed to reread the Miranda warnings to defendant before resuming the interrogation and therefore failed to scrupulously honor his right to remain silent … . People v Surles, 2025 NY Slip Op 05603, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the police stopped questioning defendant when he said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. An hour and half later the police resumed questioning without re-reading the Miranda rights. Those statement should have been suppressed.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:

Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .

… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.

Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.

 

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