You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in this foreclosure action, over a detailed dissent, determined plaintiff had demonstrated compliance with the RPAPL 1304 mailing requirements for the notice of foreclosure. The dissent argued the notice requirements were not strictly complied with. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but it should be consulted for its discussion of the proof a bank must present on the “RPAPL 1304” notice requirements to warrant summary judgment. U.S. Bank N.A. v Romano, 2024 NY Slip Op 05235, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: For at least a decade, the appellate courts have reversed summary judgment in foreclosure cases because proof of the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was found deficient. Here, over a strong dissent, the proof was deemed adequate. The detailed discussion of the proof requirements, in the majority decision and in the dissent, is instructive on the issue.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF GUILT MADE WHEN HIS APPEAL WAS PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING FOR “FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined defendant should not have been assessed 10 points for failure to accept responsibility because his denial of guilt was made when his appeal was pending:

… [T]he court should not have assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility. Defendant’s denials of guilt were made at the time his appeal from his underlying conviction was pending. “Requiring defendant to accept responsibility could potentially result in his admissions being used against him in any retrial, violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination” … . People v Wallace, 2024 NY Slip Op 05189, First Dept 10-22-24

Practice Point: A denial of guilt made when defendant’s appeal was pending and there was a chance for a retrial cannot be used against him in a SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, , ,

UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE BY THE PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO HIS RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS; DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) the fact that the People had access to defendant’s recorded jail phone calls did not, under the facts, deprive the pro se defendant of his right to present a defense, and (2) the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel:

Under the particular facts of this case, however, we conclude that defendant’s right to present a defense was not impaired by the monitoring of his jail phone calls. Defendant was out on bail for nearly the entire two years between indictment and his mid-trial remand, including more than six months while representing himself, giving him ample time to prepare his witnesses. Even after remand, there is no dispute that defendant had means other than the recorded phone lines to prepare his witnesses. Indeed, the record establishes that defendant’s daughter visited him in jail at his request before he called her to testify so that they could continue their trial preparations in person. The court was proactive in protecting defendant’s rights, permitting him time in the courtroom to speak to each of his witnesses in private before their testimony. In addition, when defendant asked to adjourn for the weekend to prepare his witnesses, the court stated that it would take the matter up in the morning, at which time it was agreed that defendant would testify for most of the remainder of the week. The court also noted that defendant had been assigned a legal advisor and an investigator, both of whom had the expertise and wherewithal to assist in the preparation of the defense.

Although the People’s monitoring of an incarcerated pro se defendant’s jail phone calls may have a chilling effect on the defendant’s trial preparation that threatens the right to present a defense—particularly if the People are able to make use of the information in the calls in the pending trial—the facts here are otherwise. Defendant became aware that the People were listening to his phone conversations only after he had presented the direct testimony of his daughter and an expert. Aside from himself, the only remaining defense witnesses provided character testimony and little else that could be considered relevant to the case. Thus, any chilling effect here was negligible. People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05176, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: Under the facts of this case, the pro se defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense by the People’s access to his recorded jail phone calls.

Practice Point: Here the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel.

 

, ,

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

In the course of the investigators’ questioning of defendant, they transitioned away from asking defendant about his flight from the police and turned to the underlying domestic violence incident. When they began focusing on how he had first encountered the victim earlier that morning, defendant expressed that he did not wish to discuss that subject. After the investigators continued with a couple of follow-up questions on this topic, defendant stated, “that’s what I want a lawyer for.” He then went on to say that he was scared to talk and noted that he could still cooperate with the District Attorney at a later time.

… [We conclude that defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel. Although the first two alleged invocations … did not constitute requests for an attorney, they nevertheless serve to indicate that the subject of obtaining a lawyer was on defendant’s mind while he was being questioned. … [O]nce the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant “articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney” … . Accordingly, any statements made by defendant thereafter should have been suppressed … . People v Lipka, 2024 NY Slip Op 05153, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statements “that’s what I want a lawyer for,” he was “scared to talk,” and he “could still cooperate later” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel. Statements made thereafter should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defendant’s request for the intoxication jury instruction was reversible error:

… County Court improperly refused to instruct the jury as to the defense of intoxication. “An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . The charge should be given when there is “evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant’s ability to form the necessary criminal intent” … . It is true that more is required than “a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated,” but the threshold to demonstrate entitlement to the charge is nevertheless “relatively low” … . We find that the evidence presented at trial regarding defendant’s consumption of alcohol during the afternoon and evening on the date in question easily surpassed this low bar. People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 05158, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant’s consumption of alcohol was more than sufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction was reversible error:

As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” … . Here, at the close of proof, defendant requested that the jury be given a cross-racial identification instruction pursuant to Boone. County Court denied his request noting, among other things, that in the present case, the identifying witness … knew defendant. County Court, however, misinterpreted the Boone standard and erred in denying defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction upon defendant’s request for same … . People v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05160, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Where the witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant appear to be of different races, defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction must be granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY TO DETERMINE THE WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; THE INFORMATION IN THE WARRANT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily denied defendant’s request to represent himself and the motion to suppress evidence retrieved from the defendant’s cell phone should have been granted:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

… [T]he warrant was supported by [the investigator’s] affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05152, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge must conduct a colloquy to ensure the waiver of the right to counsel is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: Here the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause to believe the search of defendant’s cell phone would reveal evidence of criminal possession of a controlled substance.

 

, , , ,

FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts court was the most convenient forum for this custody matter, determined Family Court’s failure to place on the record the factors it considered in making its ruling, combined with absence of any testimony, rendered the record inadequate for review, requiring remittal:

“Where, as here, a New York court has continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter, it may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it determines that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state is a more appropriate forum” … . A court is obliged to consider eight statutory factors in rendering that determination, and “[t]hose statutory factors include (1) ‘whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child,’ (2) the length of time the children have resided in another state, (3) the distance between the two states in question, (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties, (5) any agreement among the parties regarding jurisdiction, (6) the nature and location of relevant evidence, including testimony from the children, (7) the ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the relevant evidence, and (8) the familiarity of each court with the relevant facts and issues” (… Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]). Notably, the “determination depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation, and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute” … .

… Family Court did not explicitly refer to the statutory factors during its conference with the Massachusetts court, which was essentially a back-and-forth between the judges on issues that included the language of the prior custody orders, the nature of the cases presently before them and the differences between New York and Massachusetts laws governing custody proceedings. The parties were not invited to, and did not, offer any testimony regarding the relative convenience of the two forums. Matter of Mark AA. v Susan BB., 2024 NY Slip Op 05173, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court did not make an adequate record to support its ruling that a Massachusetts court was the more convenient forum for this custody matter. There were no submissions by the parties and there was no testimony. The statutory factors were not explicitly referenced. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant had a right to be present during the Sandoval/Molineux discussions concerning the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. The fact that the judge announced his rulings in defendant’s presence was not enough:

We reverse defendant’s conviction and grant him a new trial. The trial court held a conference in defendant’s absence on the prosecution’s motion to cross examine him on his prior criminal conduct, in violation of his right to be present (see CPL 260.20 …). The court held a subsequent hearing on the motion in defendant’s presence. However, the court did not hear arguments on the merits, did not confirm defendant’s understanding of the underlying facts or the merits of the application, and merely announced its decision. Thus, the subsequent proceeding did not provide for defendant’s meaningful participation in the determination of the merits of the motion and did not cure the earlier violation. People v Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s right to be present at trial includes the right to be present during the arguments about the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Sandoval/Molineux. Defendant’s presence when the judge announced the Sandoval/Molineux rulings is not sufficient.

 

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