You are here: / Judges
, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIQUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing to determine whether a witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory, noted that the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory for the first time based on the witness’s trial testimony. A Rodriguez hearing should have been when the issue came up at trial:

The witness in question disclosed on cross-examination at trial that he had identified defendant as the assailant in a photograph shown to him by the police. The People’s CPL 710.30 notice did not reference this identification. Defense counsel thus asked the court to strike the witness’s testimony on the ground of lack of notice, but the court, relying on the witness’s trial testimony, ruled that the People were not required to give notice because the identification was confirmatory. That was error. As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “prior familiarity should not be resolved at trial in the first instance” (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 452 …), and, in any event, the witness’s trial testimony was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the identification was confirmatory.

Although the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him “a couple of times” at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, he also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing would have allowed defense counsel to flesh out the extent of the relationship between the two men, thereby allowing the court to make a more informed determination as to whether the pretrial identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law. People v Alcaraz-ubiles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01637, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: If the defense is not given notice of a witness’s identification of the defendant, the witness cannot testify about the identification unless it was “confirmatory,” I.e., based on knowing the defendant. Here the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory based on the witness’s trial testimony. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing should have been held. The matter was remitted.

 

,

AS CHARGED IN THIS CASE, CRIMINAL TRESPASS THIRD IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY THIRD AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s criminal trespass third conviction, determined the judge should not have instructed the jury on that offense as a lesser included offense of burglary third degree:

“To establish that a count is a lesser included offense in accordance with CPL 1.20 (37), a [party] must establish ‘that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without at the same time committing the lesser’ ” … . As charged here, “[a] person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders” (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]). The plain language of that statute “clearly requires that both buildings and real property be fenced or otherwise enclosed in order to increase the level of culpability from trespass . . . to criminal trespass in the third degree” … . Inasmuch as that requirement is not an element of burglary in the third degree (see § 140.20), it is theoretically possible to commit burglary in the third degree without committing criminal trespass in the third degree under section 140.10 (a), and thus “a violation of that section cannot qualify as a lesser included offense of third-degree burglary” … . People v Newman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01621, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: As charged in this case, trespass third is not a lesser included offense of burglary third.

 

, ,

​ A WAIVER OF APPEAL NOT MENTIONED UNTIL SENTENCING IN INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDACT STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT COUNSEL FROM THE PREPLEA INVESTIGATION REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined (1) the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the waiver was not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pled guilty, and (2) the judge never decided defendant’s request to have certain statements, made without counsel, redacted from the preplea investigation report:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective where, as here, it is not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pleaded guilty … . …

Defendant … contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to redact from the preplea investigation report statements that defendant made during the preplea investigation interview, because those statements were made without the presence of counsel. … [D]efendant preserved the issue for our review by moving to redact the statements from the preplea investigation report … . The court stated that it was reserving decision, but there is no indication in the record that the court ever issued a decision. It is well settled that a court’s failure to rule on a motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine defendant’s motion.  People v Wallace, 2023 NY Slip Op 01616, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal not mentioned until sentencing is invalid.

Practice Point: When a judge fails to decide a motion, here a motion to redact statements from the preplea investigation report, the appellate court cannot consider the motion to have been denied and must remit for a decision.

 

,

THE PLEA-BARGAINED SENTENCE WAS BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

​The Fourth Department remitted the matter for resentencing because the sentence imposed was below the statutory minimum:

… [T]he sentence promised to defendant as part of his guilty plea and imposed upon him at sentencing, i.e., 8 years to life imprisonment, is illegal because it fell below the statutory minimum (see Penal Law §§ 70.08 [3] [b]; 265.03). Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the remedy at this stage is not to vacate his guilty plea, but to remit the matter to County Court … . On remittal, the court will have the discretion to either, if possible, ” ‘resentence defendant in a manner that ensures that he receives the benefit of his sentencing bargain or permit both parties the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement’ ” … . People v Mcdowell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01606, fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the plea-bargained sentence was below the statutory minimum. The matter was remitted for resentencing (if possible) or withdrawal of the plea agreement.

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined consecutive periods of post release supervision should not have been imposed. Although the issue was not raised on appeal, an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand:

… [T]he court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision. Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) requires that when a person is subject to two or more periods of postrelease supervision, those periods merge with and are satisfied by the service of the period having the longest unexpired time to run … . Because we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … , we modify the judgment accordingly…. . People v Koeberle, 2023 NY Slip Op 01605, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the imposition of two consecutive periods of postrelease supervision was illegal. The issue was not raised on appeal, but an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE’S SANDOVAL APPLICATION WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS AND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT THE JUDGE’S SUBSEQUENTLY ASKING, IN OPEN COURT AND IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, WHETHER THE DEFENSE WANTED TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION WAS SUFFICIENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that. although a discussion of the People’s Sandoval application was held in chambers when the defendant was not present, there was subsequent open-court proceeding in the defendant’s presence in which the judge offered the defense the opportunity to be heard on the application. The dissent argued the decision on the People’s application was made in chambers and the defendant was not given a meaningly opportunity to participate in a Sandoval hearing:

Defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial when Supreme Court conducted anin-chambers and off-the-record conference in his absence at which there was discussion regarding the People’s previously submitted, written Sandoval application … . We reject that contention. Although defendant was not present at the in-chambers conference, the court held a subsequent proceeding in open court in defendant’s presence, at which the court offered defendant an opportunity to be heard on the People’s application. Defense counsel declined. The court then made, and explained, its ruling on the People’s application. Under those circumstances, we conclude that defendant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate at the court’s subsequent de novo inquiry and his absence from the initial conference does not require reversal … . People v Sharp, 2023 NY Slip Op 01602, Fourth Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A Sandoval hearing is a material stage of a criminal proceeding at which the defendant must be present. Here the Sandoval application was discussed in chambers when the defendant was not present. Subsequently, in open court, in the defendant’s presence, the judge asked defense whether it wanted to be heard on the application and counsel declined. The majority held the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate. The dissent disagreed.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling an vacating a prior appellate decision, determined defendant sufficiently raised ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice in his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering a guilty plea. The motion should not have been denied without a hearing:

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In light of the affidavits from defendant, defendant’s plea counsel (indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant), and his sister, as well as motion counsel’s representation that plea counsel admitted in an interview that he was not well-versed in immigration law, defendant presented sufficient evidence that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, such that a hearing was warranted if a sufficient showing was similarly raised as to prejudice.

Regarding whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, we also find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to warrant a hearing. Given the length of time defendant has resided in the United States, his ties to the United States, his lack of ties to the Dominican Republic, and his employment history, defendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial … . People v Guzman-Caba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01593, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to vacate the conviction sufficiently raised ineffective assistance and prejudice issues which warranted a hearing. The defendant presented evidence he was not informed he could be deported based on his guilty plea and demonstrated he was prejudiced by the failure. The judge should have ordered a hearing.

 

, ,

IF A PREMATURE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH, THE STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL IS ILLUSORY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH; THE JUDGE CONSIDERED ONLY WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POST-CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, found the judge applied the wrong criteria for determining whether the People’s premature filling of the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations (CPL 245.50) rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory:

… [T]he criminal action was commenced on June 9, 2021 (see CPL 1.20 [17]). The People filed their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on August 6, 2021. On February 12, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People’s failure to provide all of the discovery required by CPL 245.20 rendered the certificate of compliance improper and the statement of readiness illusory. Defendant argued that the People should be charged with the entire eight month period and that the indictment should be dismissed (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the People’s certificate of compliance was proper because defendant had not been prejudiced by the People’s belated disclosure of certain required discovery and that the statement of readiness therefore was not illusory.

… [T]he court’s use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” … . On a CPL 30.30 motion, the question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance … . … In light of the court’s failure to consider whether the People’s certificate of compliance was filed in “good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” despite the belated discovery, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the People’s certificate of compliance was proper under the terms of CPL 245.50 and thus whether the statement of readiness was valid. People v Gaskin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01415, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: If the People file a certificate of compliance with discovery obligations before discovery is complete the readiness-for-trial statement may be rendered illusory. The judge must determine whether the certificate was filed in good faith, not whether defendant was prejudiced by the post-certificate discovery.

 

, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING IN THIS PARENTAL-ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON A REPORT BY A FORENSIC EVALUATOR WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing should have been held in this parental-access proceeding:

Custody and parental access determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . “While the general right to a hearing in [parental access] cases is not absolute, where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … .

Here, the record demonstrates disputed factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issue of the mother’s parental access … . Further, the Family Court, in making its determination without a hearing, relied upon the report of the forensic evaluator, which had not been admitted into evidence, and the evaluator’s opinions and credibility were untested by the parties … . Matter of McCabe v Truglio, 2023 NY Slip Op 01299, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: Custody and parental-access determinations generally require hearings. Family Court should not rely on reports which have not been admitted in evidence.

 

, ,

​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The initial breach of contract complaint was dismissed because it was not alleged the parties to the oral joint venture agreed to share the losses (therefore the statute of frauds applied to the agreement). The amendment sought to include the allegation the parties agreed to share the losses:

… Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the breach of contract causes of action in the amended complaint had previously been dismissed … . Moreover, under the circumstances here, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion. The defendants cannot be prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendments, which were premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences alleged in the amended complaint and “simply sought to cure the deficiencies cited by the Supreme Court in its earlier order which resulted in the dismissal” … . Further, the plaintiff explained that the omission of a loss-sharing allegation from the amended complaint was inadvertent, and he diligently sought to amend the pleading to correct the defect … . Benjamin v 270 Malcolm X Dev., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01275, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: In the absence of prejudice amendment of a complaint should be allowed. Here the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff did not allege the parties agreed to share the losses in an oral joint venture agreement which triggered the statute of frauds. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to allege the parties agreed to share the losses should have been granted.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy