You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and unwarned statements made by the defendant under custodial interrogation should have been suppressed. Defendant was interrogated about two missing college students. As the questioning proceeded it became apparent defendant was involved in the matter in some way, and eventually she revealed where the students were:

Defendant orally waived her right to appeal and executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. The language in the written waiver is inaccurate and misleading insofar as it purports to impose “an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal” and purports to deprive defendant of her “attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, [as well as] all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal” … . … A “waiver[] cannot be upheld . . . on the theory that the offending language can be ignored and that [it is] enforceable based on the court’s few correctly spoken terms” … . …

… [D]efendant was placed in a conference room and was questioned by an investigator from approximately 3:15 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., another investigator accompanied defendant to the bathroom, and the investigator continued questioning defendant. During that conversation, defendant made admissions demonstrating that she was more involved in the case than she had initially revealed, that she knew who was holding the students, and that one of the students had been shot. … At no time was she ever given Miranda warnings. People v Hughes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06231, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE LEVEL-THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MANDATORY AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; ON REMAND WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have considered the level three risk assessment mandatory and should have considered the evidence submitted in support of a downward department. On remand, the SORA court was directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing:

Where a “defendant’s prior felony conviction of a sex crime raised his [or her] presumptive risk level from level two to level three . . . , the [SORA] court is not mandated to apply the override but may, in appropriate circumstances, impose a lower risk level”… .

… Supreme Court, in its oral decision, incorrectly treated defendant’s presumptive level three classification as mandatory, and the court therefore never ruled on his downward departure application. We reject the People’s assertion that the court corrected that error in its subsequent written decision. … [T]he written decision explicitly “incorporates . . . [the] oral decision” and again failed to rule on defendant’s downward departure application. … [T]he “compelling evidence” line in the written decision merely summarized the findings of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and was not  … an independent holding or ruling by the court. People v Douglas, 2021 NY Slip Op 06229, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP CREDIBLE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the suppression court properly deemed the police officers’ testimony about the reasons for the traffic stop credible. After a car chase and a foot chase, a weapon was seized from the vehicle and defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon second. The dissenters argued that the testimony of the police officers was not credible and therefore the People did not meet their burden to show the traffic stop was lawful:

… [W]e reject defendant’s … contention and the dissent’s assertion that the officers’ suppression hearing testimony should be discredited, and thus that the traffic stop should be deemed unlawful, because the officers failed to disclose that they… had a pretextual reason for stopping the vehicle based on information from a confidential informant conveyed to them by another officer in an earlier phone call. The officers acknowledged when the suppression hearing was reopened that they had failed to disclose in their reports or during their prior testimony that they had a pretextual reason for stopping the vehicle based on information from a confidential informant that a firearm may have been in the vehicle. Nonetheless, one of the officers offered a credible explanation for that initial nondisclosure and the other explained that, consistent with their prior testimony, the officers had not received a “call for service,” i.e., a citizen complaint via 911, prior to the traffic stop but, rather, had received a phone call from another officer. We conclude on this record that the officers’ testimony “was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the . . . court’s determination of credibility” after it was presented with the initial omissions and subsequent explanations … . People v Addison, 2021 NY Slip Op 06225, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s ruling that defendant can be cross-examined about prior convictions if the defense cross-examines the People’s witnesses on their criminal histories was improper:

A trial court may “make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecutor of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility” … . “[A] balance must here be struck between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant’s credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, measured both by the impact of such evidence if it is admitted after his testimony and by the effect its probable introduction may have in discouraging him [or her] from taking the stand on his [or her] own behalf” and thereby denying the jury significant material evidence … . These considerations “simply do not apply to a witness who is not a defendant, and cross-examination of such a witness should therefore be permitted with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal act committed by him [or her] which may reflect upon his [or her] character and show him [or her] to be unworthy of belief” … .

… Supreme Court failed to engage in the appropriate balancing between the probative worth of the convictions on the issue of the defendant’s credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant … , and, instead, improperly conditioned its Sandoval ruling on whether defense counsel would impeach the People’s witnesses with their criminal histories. …  Whether the defendant impeaches the credibility of the People’s witnesses during cross-examination based upon those witnesses’ criminal histories, or whether the People’s witnesses testify, are not relevant factors to consider in making a Sandoval ruling … . People v Brannon, 2021 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED THE CHILD TO THE PARENTS’ CUSTODY AFTER THE CHILD HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY REMOVED BECAUSE OF APPARENT ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ application for the return of their child after a temporary removal pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 should not have been granted:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that ‘the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . * * *

The petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse against the parents by presenting evidence that injuries Ezara sustained would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the caregiver, and that the parents were the caregivers of Ezara during the relevant time period … . Specifically, the petitioner’s expert in child abuse pediatrics testified that the then two-month-old Ezara had multiple rib fractures, which appeared to have been sustained at different times, as well as fractures in his legs and a laceration of his spleen, and further testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma. The parents failed to rebut the presumption of culpability with a reasonable and adequate explanation for Ezara’s injuries … . Further, the petitioner established that the parents demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment with respect to Ezara so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in their care … . Matter of Chase P. (Maureen Q.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06173, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the bank in this foreclosure action, noted that the failure to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 can be raised at any time. Here it was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavits of Armenia L. Harrell and La’Shana Farrow, both of whom are officers of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicing agent of the plaintiff, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Both Harrell and Farrow attested that they were familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices. Farrow averred, inter alia, that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices. The record indicates that the 90-day notices appear to have been mailed by ASC (America’s Servicing Company). However, neither Harrell or Farrow attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of ASC. Therefore, they failed establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to send individually addressed notices to each borrower; rather, the 90-day notices were jointly addressed to the [defendants]. U.S. Bank N.A. v Krakoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the custody arrangement should not have been modified in the absence of a hearing. The court noted that the award of decision-making authority for any major child-related issue on which the parties cannot agree is tantamount to the award of sole custody:

The Supreme Court erred by, in effect, granting, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award her sole legal custody of the child to the extent of awarding her final decision-making authority as to any major child-related issue about which the parties could not agree, and denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award him sole legal custody. “‘[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . … There can be no question that the award of final decision-making authority is not “dramatically unlike” the relief requested, as decision making is part and parcel to legal custody. … [T]he court erred in granting this award without a hearing. The court’s determination that “neither party has established change in circumstances warranting an award of sole custody to either parent” is incongruous with the court’s determination to award the defendant final decision-making authority. Since it appears that the court believed that the parties made an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need for a change of decision-making authority to ensure the child’s best interests, a hearing on that issue was required … .  Trazzera v Trazzera, 2021 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION ESTABLISHED HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD, HE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FALL WAS DUE TO INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 2411 (6) scaffold-fall case was properly denied on evidentiary grounds, but it was not properly denied because the notice of claim was not included with the motion papers. Although the pleadings must be annexed to a summary judgment motion, a notice of claim is not a pleading. The motion was properly denied on evidentiary grounds because it was not demonstrated the fall was the result of a failure to provide adequate safety equipment:

While the defendant correctly contends that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, a notice of claim is not a pleading … . …

… [T]he plaintiff relies solely on his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony and his deposition testimony, which merely established that he fell from a scaffold. The plaintiff failed to address whether there were scaffold rails, possible tie off points for a harness, or some alternative fall protection. Without more, the plaintiff’s testimony that he “moved [his] foot” to the left, causing him to step off of the scaffold and into an “empty space,” and that “there was nothing there because [he] stepped on it and . . . thought it was something solid” are insufficient … . Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO AN ARMED FELONY, HE WAS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH” ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED AFFORDING HIM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined Supreme Court should have found defendant to be an “eligible youth” and then considered whether mitigating circumstances warranted youthful offender status:

While the ultimate determination as to whether an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.20[1]) should be afforded youthful offender status must be made “[a]fter receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence” … , there is no such requirement with respect to the initial determination as to whether the defendant is an “eligible youth” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding that the defendant was ineligible for youthful offender status. Pursuant to CPL 720.10(3), although the defendant entered a plea of guilty to an armed felony offense in which he was the sole participant, he could be eligible for youthful offender status if there were “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” … . Such mitigating circumstances include “‘a lack of injury to others or evidence that the defendant did not display a weapon during the crime'” … . Here, there is no indication in the record that the defendant displayed the firearm which was recovered from his backpack, that the defendant caused or threatened any injury to another individual, or that the defendant intended to use the firearm against another individual. Consequently, the court should have determined that the defendant is an “eligible youth,” and thus, proceeded to determine whether the defendant is entitled to youthful offender status pursuant to CPL 720.20(1) … . People v Morris, 2021 NY Slip Op 06195, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined a detective’s testimony about what a nontestifying accomplice (Andy Dabydeen) said violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. Although defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony, the defendant himself objected after the fact, citing Crawford v Washington, 541 US 51, which preserved the issue for appeal:

After the defendant continued to deny any involvement in the murder, the detective confronted him by saying that “Andy had told us what had happened.” The detective further testified that, shortly thereafter, upon returning from the bathroom, the defendant reacted to that information by stating that he could not believe that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. …

… [W]e find that the defendant’s objection—albeit made after the detective had finished testifying and the People had rested—was sufficiently specific to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause problems attendant to the People’s use, as part of their case-in-chief, of Dabydeen’s out-of-court testimonial statement directly implicating the defendant in the murder. …

This is not to suggest that the People are precluded from giving some context to the defendant’s statement that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. We merely emphasize that the People could have done so without disclosing the substance of Dabydeen’s incriminating statement … . People v Lockley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

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