You are here: / Evidence
, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND MENACING A POLICE OFFICER CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed two of defendant’s convictions as against the weight of the evidence.  Defendant was charged with reckless endangerment first degree and menacing a police officer. It was alleged defendant fired a weapon during a foot chase. The two officers heard a gunshot but no bullet or casing was found:

… [T]he jury would have had to resort to sheer speculation to find that defendant displayed or fired a weapon, much less that he fired a weapon intentionally. The officers’ testimony that they “heard” a gunshot from some distance away does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the menacing charge, that defendant visually displayed the weapon that discharged the shot. Nor does such testimony prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the reckless endangerment charge, that the shot was fired toward the officers and thereby created a grave risk of death to them. Indeed, the second officer’s testimony that he “believed” that defendant had shot at the officers is speculative and is contradicted by his contemporaneous statement that the gun might have discharged accidentally. People v Thomas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03318, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER, SHOULD NOT HAVE SANCTIONED MOTHER FOR PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED IN A DIFFERENT COURT PROCEEDING, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) father should not have been awarded sole custody of the children for 60 days because no change of circumstances was alleged or demonstrated; (2) the court should not have, sua sponte, directed a child be deprived of cell phone and other electronic devices and be barred from outside-the-home activities; (3) the court should not have have directed mother to pay a fine to father for perjury; (4) the court did not have the authority to sanction mother for frivolous conduct (perjury); (5) the court should not have awarded attorney’s fees to father:

… [T]he court summarily punished the mother by sanctioning her after it determined that she committed perjury during her testimony before a Judicial Hearing Officer in Family Court with respect to the temporary order of protection and during her testimony at the hearing on the petition before Supreme Court. Assuming, arguendo, that perjury would support a finding of contempt, we conclude that the court could not properly find the mother in criminal contempt based on her testimony in Family Court, nor could the court summarily punish the mother for civil or criminal contempt based on that testimony, inasmuch as it occurred out of the court’s “immediate view and presence” … . Insofar as the order may be deemed to sanction the mother for civil or criminal contempt that occurred in the presence of Supreme Court, we conclude that, because “due process requires that . . . the contemnor be afforded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” … , and the court failed to provide notice that it was considering finding the mother in contempt or an opportunity to be heard thereon, the court erred in imposing such sanction … . …

Assuming, arguendo, that sanctions for frivolous conduct may be based on a party’s perjury, we conclude that the regulation permitting the imposition of such sanctions specifically provides that it “shall not apply to . . . proceedings in the Family Court commenced under article . . . 8 of the Family Court Act” … . …

In awarding attorney’s fees to the father, the court did not state, and we cannot determine on this record, whether it did so based upon the custodial stipulation between the parties or pursuant to statute. Consequently, we are unable ” to determine whether the award was within the proper exercise of the court’s discretion’ ” … . Ritchie v Ritchie, 2020 NY Slip Op 03316, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT HER BOYFRIEND, WHO USED TO BE THE BOYFRIEND OF THE MURDER VICTIM, CONFESSED TO KILLING THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his murder conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated that a witness was willing to testify that her boyfriend had confessed to the murder. When the witness did not show up to testify, defense counsel did not attempt to secure her attendance:

… [A]t the time of the trial, defense counsel explicitly informed the court, on the record, that his strategy was to call the witness and present her exculpatory testimony. In this regard, defense counsel stated, “[t]here’s one other issue that may or may not come up . . . [that has] to do with [the witness]. [The witness] had a conversation with her then-boyfriend . . . who had been the boyfriend of [the victim] where [the boyfriend] made a tape recording of his voice, identifying his name, his date of birth and his social security number, and indicated there that he killed [the victim]. His words were I killed the bitch. I killed the bitch. I killed the bitch.’ And that is the substance of a police report that I received from [the prosecutor].” When the court asked how defense counsel intended to introduce this testimony, he responded, “[w]ell, I intend to call [the witness], should she appear in court. She was subpoenaed. She appeared on Thursday pursuant to the subpoena as well and told me this information for the first time. I don’t know whether she’s going to be here when we need to call her, which is why I thought maybe we’d wait and see if she showed up and not take the Court’s time to do extra research on this issue. But since you’ve asked me to bring up any possible issues, I would put her on the witness stand and make an offer of proof to the Court and attempt to prove her reliability of the information that she’s giving under the Settles case relating to a statement against [the boyfriend’s] penal interest.” When the court then asked whether “[the witness’s] testimony would relate to this particular homicide,” defense counsel responded, “Oh yes. Yes.” Nevertheless, and consistent with defense counsel’s representation that he would pursue the testimony only if the witness appeared as directed, defense counsel took no further action to secure the witness’s presence when she did not appear … . We agree with defendant that the failure to secure the witness’s attendance was deficient conduct and that the record discloses no tactical reason for defense counsel’s actions … . People v Borcyk, 2020 NY Slip Op 03359, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of the complaint was too severe a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s scheduling order:

Defendants merely alleged that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery deadlines set forth in the scheduling order was due to the representations of plaintiff’s attorney that he was engaged in settlement negotiations with a claims adjuster. Plaintiff’s attorney apparently believed that settlement of the case was imminent and, thus, that depositions would not be necessary. There is also nothing in the record to indicate that plaintiff ignored any warnings from the court that continued noncompliance with discovery orders could lead to the court striking the complaint … , or that defendants were prejudiced by the delay in conducting discovery … .

Although plaintiff’s dilatory conduct may have reasonably prompted defendants to seek the court’s guidance, the drastic sanction of dismissing the complaint with prejudice provided more relief than was necessary to protect defendants’ interests … . In short, plaintiff’s conduct was not the type of “deliberately evasive, misleading and uncooperative course of conduct or a determined strategy of delay” that would justify the penalty of dismissal of the complaint … . Windnagle v Tarnacki, 2020 NY Slip Op 03355, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

FINDING THAT MOTHER DID NOT MEDICALLY NEGLECT HER CHILDREN LACKED A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding that mother did not medically neglect her children lacked a sound and substantial basis:

A neglected child is defined, in relevant part, as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate . . . medical . . . care, though financially able to do so” … . “The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … .

A parent’s failure to provide medical care as required by [Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (A)] may be interpreted to include psychiatric medical care where it is necessary to prevent the impairment of the child’s emotional condition’ ” … . Here, upon our review of the record, we conclude that DSS established a prima facie case of medical neglect by presenting evidence that the mother failed to follow mental health treatment recommendations upon the daughter’s discharges from psychiatric hospitalizations for suicidal and homicidal ideation and that the mother failed to rebut DSS’s prima facie case … .

We further agree with the AFC that the evidence of neglect with respect to the daughter ” demonstrates such an impaired level of . . . judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [the mother’s] care,’ ” thus warranting a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the younger children … . Matter of Olivia W. (Courtney W.), 2020 NY Slip Op 03296, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

THE SECTION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RELIED ON BY THE POLICE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE AND THE STOP THEREFORE MAY HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ON THAT GROUND CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; PLEA VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the initial stop of the vehicle in which defendant attempted to flee from a public housing complex parking area may not have been justified and the defense attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress on that ground. The vehicle stop was based on the alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1211 (unsafe backing). But the statute does not apply to parking areas as opposed to parking lots. The Fourth Department held the application of the law to a parking area would not constitute an objectively reasonable mistake of law which could justify the stop. On the record before it, however, the Fourth Department could not determine whether the area in question met the statutory definition of a parking lot:

… [D]efendant had a valid argument that the initial vehicle stop was unlawful because the parking area in which the police purportedly observed unsafe backing was not a “parking lot” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b … . …

Defendant also had a valid argument that the initial vehicle stop could not be justified due to the police officers’ objectively reasonable, yet mistaken, belief that the parking area was a “parking lot” as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b … ….

Although contentions that defense counsel was ineffective survive only to the extent that “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that . . . defendant entered the plea because of [defense counsel’s] allegedly poor performance” … , the court’s consideration of the aforementioned arguments here would likely have resulted in suppression of the handgun and, concomitantly, dismissal of some or all of the indictment … . We therefore conclude that defendant demonstrated that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error[], [defendant] would not have pleaded guilty” … . People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 03295, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

COCAINE IS NOT DANGEROUS CONTRABAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE FIRST DEGREE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE SECOND DEGREE (PROHIBITING ‘CONTRABAND,’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND’) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined cocaine does not meet the statutory definition of dangerous contraband within the meaning of the offense of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The defendant’s conviction, based upon the possession of three baggies of cocaine, was reduced to promoting prison contraband in the second degree:

“A person is guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree when . . . [that person] knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.25 [1]). “Dangerous contraband” is defined as any contraband that is “capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein” (§ 205.00 [4]). “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . ” [W]eapons, tools, explosives and similar articles likely to facilitate escape or cause disorder, damage or physical injury are examples of dangerous contraband,’ ” whereas an ” alcoholic beverage is an example of [ordinary] contraband’ ” … . Drugs, unlike weapons, are not inherently dangerous, and thus general penological concerns about the drug possessed that “are not addressed to the specific use and effects of the particular drug are insufficient to meet the definition of dangerous contraband” … . * * *

Central to our dissenting colleague’s analysis is a distinction between narcotic and non-narcotic controlled substances. The unstated premise is that cocaine is classified as a narcotic because it is inherently dangerous. We respectfully disagree with that premise. Cocaine may be unhealthy, but it is not a narcotic, at least not from a scientific, medical, or pharmacological viewpoint … . People v Simmons, 2020 NY Slip Op 03350, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a street stop should have been granted and vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant was charged with two burglaries on different days. Defendant pled guilty to one of the burglaries in satisfaction of both. Defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion related to the street stop. The Fourth Department did not reach the merits of the appeal because the suppression motion did not involve the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because of its potential effect on the decision to plead guilty in satisfaction of both charges:

A majority of this Court concluded that ” the judgment of conviction on appeal here did not ensue from the denial of the motion to suppress [relating solely to count two] and the latter [wa]s, therefore, not reviewable’ pursuant to CPL 710.70 (2)” … . The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that “the Appellate Division may review an order denying a motion to suppress evidence where, as here, the contested evidence pertained to a count—contained in the same accusatory instrument as the count defendant pleaded guilty to—that was satisfied by the plea” … . The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court to rule on defendant’s suppression contention.

Upon remittitur, we now agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of his unlawful detention on October 3, 2014 … . We further agree with defendant that such error was not harmless under the circumstances (see id. at 1424). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant on October 3, 2014, and remit the matter to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 03345, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

FEDERAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL MARINE INTERDICTION AGENT IS NOT A PEACE OFFICER UNDER NEW YORK LAW; THEREFORE THE AGENT MADE A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST OF AN ERRATIC DRIVER HE OBSERVED WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY; MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division, over a dissent, determined the federal marine interdiction agent with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was not a peace officer under New York law and, therefore, could effect a citizen’s arrest. The federal agent observed defendant driving erratically and putting other drivers in danger so he activated his emergency lights and pulled the driver over. The agent stayed in his vehicle and called the Buffalo police. After the Buffalo police arrived, the agent left. The police found a weapon in defendant’s car and he was charged with criminal possession of a weapon. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to suppress and the Fourth Department affirmed. Both courts relied on People v Williams (4 NY3d 535 [2005]) which held that peace officers could not make a citizen’s arrest. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Williams did not control because the federal agent in this case was not a peace officer under the relevant New York statutory definitions and therefore could make a citizen’s arrest:

Because the agent who stopped defendant in this case is not considered a federal law enforcement officer with peace officer powers pursuant to CPL 2.10 and 2.15, he could not have improperly circumvented the jurisdictional limitations on the powers reserved for those members of law enforcement under CPL 140.25, as the peace officers in Williams did. In other words, the agent’s conduct here did not violate the Legislature’s prescribed limits on a peace officer’s arrest powers because he is not, in fact, a peace officer. …

… [A]side from the clear limits as to the justifiable use of physical force that may be applied during an arrest by a private citizen (CPL 35.30 [4]; CPL 140.35 [3]), as well as the requirement that “[s]uch person must inform the person whom he [or she] is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he [or she] encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical” (CPL 140.35 [2]), nothing in the citizen’s arrest statutes themselves set forth the methods that must be employed when, as here, a crime is committed in the responding citizen’s presence (see CPL 140.30, 140.40 …). We reiterate that whether this stop comported with constitutional principles or the express terms of the arrest statutes is simply not before us, as defendant failed to raise any such arguments before the suppression court. People v Page, 2020 NY Slip Op 03265, CtApp 6-11-20

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE US SUPREME COURT CASE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR CELL SITE LOCATION DATA WAS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, PRESERVATION OF THAT ISSUE FOR APPEAL IS STILL NECESSARY; A DEFENDANT MAY BE INDICTED FOR BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE AND INTENTIONAL MURDER; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTINGS AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WERE APPROPRIATE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming defendant’s murder, assault and weapon-possession convictions, and affirming the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the convictions, determined: (1) the issue re: the warrantless procurement of cell site location data was not preserved, and preservation was necessary despite the fact that the US Supreme Court case requiring warrants was not decided at the time of trial; (2) the defendant was properly indicted, by different grand juries, for both depraved indifference and intentional murder; and (3) consecutive sentences for possession of a weapon and the shootings were appropriate:

At trial, defendant did not preserve any claim relating to cell site location information obtained without a warrant, and the motion court providently exercised its discretion under CPL 440.10(2)(b) when it rejected defendant’s attempt to raise this issue by way of a postconviction motion. Defendant asserts that it would have been futile for trial counsel to raise the issue because the Supreme Court of the United States had not yet decided Carpenter v United States (585 US __, 138 S Ct 2206 [2018]), a case that we assume, without deciding, applies here because defendant’s direct appeal was pending at the time that case was decided. We conclude that defendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation. Although Carpenter had not yet been decided, and trial counsel may have reasonably declined to challenge the cell site information, defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as did the litigant who ultimately succeeded in doing so … . In the closely related context of preservation, the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected the argument that an “appellant should not be penalized for his failure to anticipate the shape of things to come” … . * * *

A grand jury’s indictment of defendant for depraved indifference murder, after a prior grand jury had indicted him for intentional murder, did not violate CPL 170.95(3). The second presentation did not require permission from the court, because the first indictment cannot be deemed a dismissal of the depraved indifference count in the absence of any indication that the first grand jury was aware of or considered that charge … . The rule that a person may not be convicted of both intentional and depraved indifference murder … applies to verdicts after trial, not indictments. These charges may be presented to a trial jury in the alternative (as occurred in this case, where defendant was acquitted of depraved murder but nevertheless claims a spillover effect). Furthermore, the People were not required to present both charges to the same grand jury … . People v Crum, 2020 NY Slip Op 03282, First Dept 6-11-20

 

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