You are here: / Criminal Law
, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s sexual-abuse conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when several prospective jurors indicated they would be inclined to believe the victim:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR [Mr. L.]: … I would say that I do think that there is a lot of disincentives to come forward at all. And to come forward to this point, it would surprise me that someone would get that far without there being anything at all to it

THE COURT: Okay. …

MR. LYNCH: I know some of you raised your hand. Who agrees with the statement that Mr. L. just said?” (at which time 5 jurors raised their hands).

This statement by prospective juror (Mr. L.) and the apparent agreement by the other prospective jurors who raised their hands was sufficient to raise “a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial” … . The court erred in not engaging in any further inquiry of these jurors in order to elicit an unequivocal assurance of their impartiality and their ability to follow the court’s instructions … . People v Ledezma, 2022 NY Slip Op 02236, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In this sexual abuse case, five prospective jurors agreed with a prospective juror who said he would be inclined to believe the victim because of how hard it is to come forward. The judge should have made further inquiries. New trial ordered.

 

BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE ELEMENT THAT THE VICTIM WAS LESS THAN 17; BOTH HAD THE WRONG BIRTH DATE FOR THE VICTIM WHICH THEREBY ALLEGED THE VICTIM WAS MORE THAN 17; THAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the superior court information, determined that both the indictment and the subsequent superior court information were jurisdictionally defective. Both charged sexual offenses with the victim being less than 17 years old as an element. Both had the wrong birth date for the victim, which placed the victim’s age at more than 17 years old. The Third Department noted that the indictment, which was replaced by the superior court information, was improperly amended to reflect the correct birth date:

… [T]he superior court information specifically cited and charged defendant with endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law § 260.10 (1), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). However, the superior court information also alleged that, “[o]n or about November 13, 2016, . . . the defendant . . . did knowingly act in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old, . . . having a date of birth of 6/2/1999, by engaging in oral sexual conduct with” the victim. Inasmuch as the offense of endangering the welfare of a child requires that the victim be less than 17 years old, we find that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to effectively charge defendant with the commission of a crime where the date of birth indicated that the victim was 17 at the time of the offense … .

Although a trial court may permit an indictment to be amended “with respect to defects, errors or variances from the proof relating to the matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like” (CPL 200.70 [1]), an indictment may not “be amended for the purpose of curing . . . [a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense[] or . . . [l]egal insufficiency of the factual allegations” (CPL 200.70 [2] [a], [b] … ). Here, inasmuch as the first five counts of the indictment charged defendant with offenses that required the victim to be less than 17 years old, such counts suffered from the same jurisdictional defect as the superior court information in that they failed to allege a crime by stating that the victim’s date of birth was June 2, 1999 — making the victim 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense on November 13, 2016. As such, County Court had no authority to grant the People’s application to amend those counts, “regardless of any consistency with the People’s theory before the grand jury” or lack of prejudice to defendant … . People v Solomon, 2022 NY Slip Op 02158, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: If an element of the crime is that the victim is less than 17, and the indictment and the superior court information have the wrong birth date which puts the victim’s age at more than 17, the indictment and the superior court information are jurisdictionally defective and cannot be amended.

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCORDED ANY WEIGHT TO AN OFF-THE-RECORD “CONDITION” THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENT TO THE PLEA OFFER IF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WERE GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE CAN BARGAIN FOR SUCH A CONDITION, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RECORD ABOUT IT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the sentence and remitting the matter, determined County Court failed to consider the relevant factors for adjudicating defendant a youthful offender. Instead the court did not consider the issue at all based on its understanding the People would withdraw their consent to the  plea offer if youthful offender status were granted. Although the People may bargain for the right to withdraw consent to the plea agreement is youthful offender treatment is granted, there was no such condition on the record here:

“[I]t is a settled rule of law in this [s]tate that off-the-record promises made in the plea bargaining process will not be recognized where they are flatly contradicted by the record, either by the existence of some on-the-record promise whose terms are inconsistent with those later urged or by the placement on the record of a statement by the pleading defendant that no other promises have been made to induce his [or her] guilty plea” … . The plea proceedings here were devoid of any indication that the People conditioned their consent to the plea agreement upon defendant not receiving youthful offender treatment or that defendant understood such a condition to be part of the agreement, and defendant stated during the plea colloquy that no off-the-record promises had been made to induce his guilty plea. The People further failed to reference their purported right to withdraw consent to the plea agreement when they addressed the question of youthful offender treatment at sentencing. The alleged off-the-record arrangement was unenforceable given those circumstances and, as such, “County Court should not have accorded any weight to” it … .

… County Court found that defendant was an “eligible youth” for purposes of youthful offender status (CPL 720.10 [2], [3]), the court was obliged to consider the relevant factors and determine whether it would, as a discretionary matter, adjudicate him to be a youthful offender … . People v Irizarry, 2022 NY Slip Op 02159, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here County Court did not consider the factors for adjudicating whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status based upon on an off-the-record “condition,” i.e., that the People would withdraw their consent to the plea offer if the defendant were granted youthful offender status. Although the People can bargain for such a condition, there was nothing on the record about it. Therefore the judge should not have given it any weight and should have considered the factors for a youthful offender adjudication.

 

, ,

A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE; THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION REFERENCE TO THE PORTION OF THE PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE NEEDED A “PAID LAWYER” WAS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a jail phone call in which defendant said he might plead guilty was inadmissible. In addition the prosecutor’s comment on summation that defendant said (in that jail phone call) he needed a “paid lawyer” was an improper reference to defendant’s right to counsel:

[Defendant] was deprived of a fair trial based upon the admission of a jail phone call wherein he stated that he might as well “cop out to . . . the five years or whatever.” The People portrayed this evidence as relevant to show defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Even if relevant, evidence of consciousness of guilt is generally considered weak … . That said, defendant’s statement that he contemplated taking a plea had little probative value but had a prejudicial effect on him. In this regard, “[s]ince it is widely assumed that only the guilty would consider entering a guilty plea, the knowledge that defendant wanted to plead guilty would make it difficult for the jury to accept the presumption of innocence and to evaluate the evidence fairly” … .

We also agree with defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comment on summation that defendant, in the jail phone call, stated that “[h]e need[ed] to get a paid lawyer to see if he can get lesser time.” The prosecutor argued to the jury that this statement went to defendant’s consciousness of guilt. A prosecutor, however, cannot use a defendant’s invocation of his or her constitutional right to counsel against such defendant … . It follows that any commentary to this effect is improper. Accordingly, defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s summation … . People v Roberts, 2022 NY Slip Op 02157, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Defendant, in a jail phone call, said he might plead guilty and he needed a “paid lawyer.” The “might plead guilty” statement should not have been admitted because it was highly prejudicial but had little probative value. The prosecutor’s reference in summation to the “need a paid lawyer” statement improperly used defendant’s right to counsel against him. These were deemed reversible errors.

 

, ,

THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE AN INMATE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (RTF) TO PROVIDE SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE ABOUT TO BE RELEASED WITH REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS IN THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY, AS OPPOSED TO WITHIN THE PRISON (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “residential treatment facility” (RTF) within the Fishkill Correctional Facility complied with the Correction Law. Plaintiffs alleged Fishkill did not provide sufficient opportunities outside the prison facility for reintegrating inmates into the community. Supreme Court agreed. The Third Department held that the Correction Law does not indicate the programs for reintegrating inmates must be offered outside the facility:

A resident in an RTF “may be permitted to leave such facility in accordance with the provisions of [Correction Law § 73]” …. To that end, DOCCS “shall be responsible for securing appropriate education, on-the-job training and employment” for RTF residents (Correction Law § 73 [2]). Furthermore, “[p]rograms directed toward the rehabilitation and total reintegration into the community of persons transferred to a residential treatment facility shall be established” (Correction Law § 73 [3]). That said, nothing in Correction Law § 73 (2) or (3) states specifically where the opportunities provided in a rehabilitative program established by DOCCS or where the education, training or employment to be secured by DOCCS must be located. In other words, there is no statutory mandate providing that DOCCS’s obligations under Correction Law § 73 be outside the confines of Fishkill. Alcantara v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 02163, Third Dept 3-31-22

 

, , ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE STATUTORY FACTORS SUPPORTING ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE FORMER INMATE TO WORK AS A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER; THEREFORE THE DENIAL WAS ARBITRARY; MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a certificate of good conduct (CGC) was not supported by the agency’s cursory rulings, rendering the denial arbitrary and requiring remittal for further proceedings. Petitioner, a former inmate with a sexual-offense conviction, sought the certificate of good standing in order to work as a school bus driver:

… [T]he challenged determination is a form letter with blanks to be filled in, and the Assistant Commissioner made no effort to explain his reasoning beyond checking a box next to a sentence stating that petitioner’s application was being denied because “[t]he relief to be granted by the [CGC] is inconsistent with public interest.” There is no question that such a “cursory letter decision,” which mentions only one of the statutory factors set forth in Correction Law § 703-b and offers no discussion of the “grounds for the denial[,] precludes meaningful review of the rationality of the decision” … .

… Correction Law article 23 requires more than a naked reliance on the crime of conviction, and the Assistant Commissioner’s affidavit … reflects that DOCCS “failed to comply with the statute and acted in an arbitrary manner” … . Although the record contains other information regarding the circumstances of petitioner’s conviction and his subsequent history that might render the denial of his application rational, a “court is powerless to sanction the determination by substituting what it deems a more appropriate or proper basis” … . Matter of Streety v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 02170, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: If an administrative agency issues a ruling which does adequately explain the statutory factors upon which the ruling is based, making a review of the bases of the ruling impossible, the ruling may be characterized as “arbitrary” and annulled.

,

THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing two of defendant’s burglary convictions, determined the hospital from which laptops were stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes:

Defendant’s convictions under counts three and four of the indictment, regarding the 2017 thefts of laptop computers from the Physicians & Surgeons Building at Columbia University Medical Center, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence of the “dwelling” element of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.00[3]). There was no evidence that patients stayed overnight in this building. The People’s reliance on Penal Law § 140.00(2) is unavailing, because no “unit” within the building is a dwelling. Although the building was part of a large campus covering several blocks, there was insufficient evidence that this building provided defendant with ready access via connecting elevators, stairwells, or corridors to other buildings, where hospital patients stayed overnight and which was, in any event, at a considerable distance … . People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02205, First Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here a hospital from which laptops had been stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when a prospective juror said travel plans prohibited her from serving beyond the projected last day of the trial:

During jury selection, the court advised the panel that the trial could last until April 17, 2018. The panelist at issue stated that she “absolutely” could not serve on April 18, because she had irrevocable travel plans for that day. When defense counsel said that “we are starting to get closer to the 16th, 17th,” and asked whether she “may not be able to give [her] best attention” if “we started moving in that direction,” the panelist said, “Yes.” Counsel challenged this panelist for cause because of the concern that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial due to her travel constraints. In the alternative, counsel sought to question this panelist further. The court denied the challenge because it believed that the trial “should never even get that close.” Defendant was compelled to exercise his final peremptory challenge against this panelist. The court should have granted defendant’s request for further inquiry to determine her ability to serve … . Given that her travel plans precluded her from serving a single day beyond the court’s estimated outer limit for the trial, the panelist gave the impression that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial, as she stated, and that, if selected, she might have been biased in favor of reaching a verdict quickly … . People v Bowman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02208, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here a prospective juror had firm travel plans and therefore could not serve beyond the projected last day of the trial. The judge should have inquired further when defense counsel suggested she may have difficulty focusing on the trial. The juror may have been biased in favor of a quick verdict. Defense counsel used a peremptory challenge; new trial ordered.

 

,

THE SIX-YEAR DELAY, DURING WHICH DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; THE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s murder and assault convictions after trial, determined defendant have been deprived of his right to a speedy. It was presumed that the delay of six years, during which defendant was incarcerated, prejudiced the defense. The prosecution failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay:

“Where there has been extended delay, it is the People’s burden to establish good cause” … . Following defendant’s January 2011 arraignment, this case was reassigned to successive Assistant District Attorneys. After the case was assigned to the third and final prosecutor in mid-2014, he waited about one year before seeking to obtain a DNA sample from defendant to be compared with DNA recovered from a plastic cup found outside the garage in which the shootings occurred during a party. That motion was denied because there was no nexus between the cup and the shootings, and because defendant’s admitted attendance at the party was undisputed. The People argue that their delay was justified by the reluctance of a retired detective to testify; they cite a note from the detective’s doctor stating that he was medically unfit to be cross-examined and argue that the detective was a necessary witness because he conducted the lineup in which the surviving victim identified defendant as the assailant. However, this detective ultimately did not testify at the suppression hearing or trial, and the suppression court credited the hearing testimony of the surviving victim, who knew defendant, and denied the motion to suppress the identification based on that testimony. Moreover, it is undisputed that the retired detective was not needed to introduce defendant’s statements, which were introduced through another detective at trial. People v McDonald, 2022 NY Slip Op 02099, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s murder and assault convictions after trial were reversed because defendant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. Defendant was incarcerated during the six-year delay, which raised the presumption the defense was prejudiced by the delay. In addition the People were not able to show a good cause for the delay. The People claimed a detective’s poor health precluded him from testifying, but the detective’s testimony was not necessary.

 

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