You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR HERE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THE CODEFENDANT’S APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. The uncle was convicted and the Fourth Department ruled that the failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error. However the evidence against defendant was weaker and the jury charge may well have led to an acquittal:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . As we noted in the codefendant’s appeal, “[a]lthough surveillance video footage of a crime can constitute direct evidence . . . , it did not constitute direct evidence here. Defendant’s identity cannot be discerned clearly from the surveillance video footage offered at trial inasmuch as the perpetrators in the videos are masked” … .

We concluded in the codefendant’s appeal that the court’s failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless given that the codefendant and his vehicle could be tracked to the scenes of the offenses based upon cell phone data, license plate readers, and surveillance video (McEnnis, 247 AD3d at 1475-1476). Here, however, the evidence of defendant’s involvement was substantially less. While one perpetrator on the surveillance video generally matched defendant’s height and build, no witness identified him at the scene of any of the robberies. Moreover, as the People’s expert acknowledged, the expert had “no location information” for defendant’s phone at the times that the alleged incidents occurred. Although the evidence at trial established that defendant exchanged text messages and calls with the codefendant on the dates of the offenses and that the codefendant drove to defendant’s apartment building in Niagara Falls prior to and after the offenses, the People’s expert conceded that he could do little more than “speculate [as to] where [defendant] was during [those] periods of time” when the robberies were being committed. Thus, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . People v Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 04629. Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder and robbery and tried separately. The failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error in the uncle’s trial. But it was reversible error in defendant’s trial because the evidence tying defendant to the crimes was weaker.

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR HERE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THE CODEFENDANT’S APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. The uncle was convicted and the Fourth Department ruled that the failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error. However the evidence against defendant was weaker and the jury charge may well have led to an acquittal:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . As we noted in the codefendant’s appeal, “[a]lthough surveillance video footage of a crime can constitute direct evidence . . . , it did not constitute direct evidence here. Defendant’s identity cannot be discerned clearly from the surveillance video footage offered at trial inasmuch as the perpetrators in the videos are masked” … .

We concluded in the codefendant’s appeal that the court’s failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless given that the codefendant and his vehicle could be tracked to the scenes of the offenses based upon cell phone data, license plate readers, and surveillance video (McEnnis, 247 AD3d at 1475-1476). Here, however, the evidence of defendant’s involvement was substantially less. While one perpetrator on the surveillance video generally matched defendant’s height and build, no witness identified him at the scene of any of the robberies. Moreover, as the People’s expert acknowledged, the expert had “no location information” for defendant’s phone at the times that the alleged incidents occurred. Although the evidence at trial established that defendant exchanged text messages and calls with the codefendant on the dates of the offenses and that the codefendant drove to defendant’s apartment building in Niagara Falls prior to and after the offenses, the People’s expert conceded that he could do little more than “speculate [as to] where [defendant] was during [those] periods of time” when the robberies were being committed. Thus, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . People v Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 04629. Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder and robbery and tried separately. The failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error in the uncle’s trial. But it was reversible error in defendant’s trial because the evidence tying defendant to the crimes was weaker.

 

, , ,

PRESENTING THE GRAND JURY WITH EVIDENCE SUBSEQUENTLY RULED IRRELEVANT DID NOT AMOUNT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTING DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, reversing County Court, determined the prosecutor’s presentation of evidence to the grand jury which was subsequently ruled irrelevant did not amount to misconduct warranting dismissal of the indictment. Defendant drove his car at high speed in poor road conditions. The car left the road, crashed and burned. The two passengers were killed. Defendant was charged with criminally negligent homicide. Driving at a high speed in poor road conditions, without more, will not support criminally negligent homicide. The prosecutor presented evidence of a blood test which indicated defendant had used marijuana to meet the criteria for criminally negligent homicide. When County Court determined the marijuana evidence was irrelevant because there was no proof the marijuana-use affected defendant’s ability to operate the car, County Court dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department found that the presentation of the irrelevant evidence was not “prosecutorial misconduct” which justified dismissal of the indictment:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting defendant’s renewed motion on the ground that the grand jury proceedings were rendered defective due to prosecutorial misconduct. At the outset, it is worth noting what is not at issue here. Specifically, we note that there is no evidence in this case that the People, in introducing the cannabinoid evidence to the grand jury, intentionally engaged “in an over-all pattern of bias and misconduct” that was “pervasive” and “willful” (Thompson, 22 NY3d at 699 [internal quotation marks omitted]). There also is no evidence that, in introducing the challenged evidence, the prosecutor was “motivated by bias or a desire to deceive the grand jury” (id. at 706) or that there was any “nefarious design to deliberately cause unfairness to defendant” (People v Wisdom, 23 NY3d 970, 973 [2014]).

Rather, the court’s conclusion that the People had impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceedings through misconduct was predicated on its determination that the People had improperly introduced the cannabinoid evidence—evidence that was later found to be irrelevant. In so concluding, the court failed to explain how the People’s reliance on the allegedly flawed cannabinoid evidence met the dismissal standard set forth by the Court of Appeals in the aforementioned cases. Indeed, it is quite clear from those decisions that a mere error or flaw by a prosecutor in presenting evidence does not, in fact, meet the demanding test for establishing entitlement to dismissal due to the impairment of the integrity of the grand jury proceedings … . People v Stencel, 2026 NY Slip Op 04574, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the nature of prosecutorial misconduct at the grand jury stage which mandates dismissal of the indictment, not the case here.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE JUDGE “MY LAWYER IS INEFFECTIVELY COUNSELING ME” THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT AND SHUT DOWN ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the judge’s failure to conduct any inquiry when defendant requested new counsel was reversible error:

A defendant may be entitled to new counsel “upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel … . The defendant’s request “may not be used merely to delay the orderly administration of justice” … . It must be supported by “specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel” … . Once the court determines that defendant’s request is not “merely to delay” but is “seemingly serious,” the court is required to make a minimal inquiry before exercising its discretion to grant or deny substitution of counsel … .

However, before the court can determine whether the defendant’s allegations are sufficiently serious to warrant minimal inquiry, it must at the very least allow the defendant the opportunity to make the allegations … . Thus, this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant is entitled to a new trial where the trial court “denied [a] request for new counsel without making any inquiry into the substance of his request, and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request” … . * * *

In this case, after jury selection was complete and as the jurors were about to enter the courtroom, defendant told the court, “I feel I’m not getting a fair trial. I’m not even prepared for a trial. My lawyer, my lawyer is ineffectively counseling me . . . . [a]nd also representing me.” The court responded that “You made your record” and “I’m not relieving your counsel. Don’t interrupt me.” Defendant tried to continue his request and stated, “I asked for a lab report. He gave me a field test.” The courtinterjected and instructed defendant to “not interrupt me” and warned that “[i]f you do this kind of behavior, particularly if the jury is here, it’s going to be a problem, okay. So just get yourself under control.” The court’s admonition effectively foreclosed any further discussion. People v Cooper, 2026 NY Slip Op 04561, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: When a defendant tells the judge he is not being effectively represented by counsel, the judge should make at least a minimal inquiry. Here the failure to make any inquiry into the basis of defendant’s statement was deemed reversible error.

 

, , , ,

WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM, DOCCS CANNOT CONSIDER THE ORDER TO BE MERELY A RECOMMENDATION WHICH CAN BE IGNORED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the discretion to treat Supreme Court’s order to enroll petitioner in the shock probation program as a recommendation which need not be implemented. Although the petitioner had been released from incarceration, the Third Department considered the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]hen applying the literal language of Penal Law § 60.04 (7) (a) and Correction Law § 865 (1), the most rational interpretation of the statutes is that, when the same sentencing judge imposes concurrent sentences on convictions for an eligible drug offense and another non-enumerated offense, the sentencing judge’s directive to enroll an eligible incarcerated individual into the shock incarceration program upon the conviction for the qualifying drug offense is binding on DOCCS, so long as the conviction on the additional non-drug offense is not one of the disqualifying offenses listed in Correction Law § 865 (1). Matter of Adams v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 04542, Third Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Absent a statutory exception, DOCCS must implement a sentencing judge’s order to enroll defendant in the shock probation program.

 

,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE THREE-STEP PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING A BATSON CHALLENGE; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE’S PURPORTED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR ELIMINATING A PROSPECTIVE HISPANIC JUROR WERE PRETEXTUAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge did not follow the established three-step procedure for assessing defendant’s Batson challenge to the People’s peremptory challenge to an Hispanic prospective juror:

The defendant challenged the People’s use of a peremptory challenge pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) with respect to the challenge to strike the third Hispanic prospective juror. The defendant contended that the People’s prior use of a peremptory challenge to a Hispanic prospective juror in the first round of jury selection and the People’s challenges to the two prospective Hispanic jurors in the second round were racially motivated. The defendant pointed out that the People moved to strike the only three Hispanic prospective jurors. In response to the defendant’s challenge, the County Court required the defendant to articulate an additional reason as to why the defendant contended that the People’s exercise of its peremptory challenge was racially motivated. Defense counsel essentially reiterated his contentions. Thereafter, following the People’s articulation of a race-neutral reason for their exercise of each of the three challenges, the court denied the defendant’s Batson challenge on the ground that the defendant did not carry his prima facie burden. The court failed to reach step three of Batson wherein the burden shifts to the defendant to argue a basis as to why the reasons proffered by the People were pretextual. * * *

… [T]he defendant satisfied step one of Batson … . Accordingly, at that point, the burden shifted to the People to proffer race-neutral explanations for exercising their peremptory challenges to eliminate those prospective jurors … . Thereafter, the court failed to allow the defendant to challenge whether the reasons proffered, although facially neutral, were pretextual and not genuine reasons for the challenges … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 04440, Second Dept 7-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the three-step procedure for assessing a Batson challenge to the People’s exercise of a peremptory challenge.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BIPOLAR-DISORDER DIAGNOSIS WAS MADE “POST-CRIME,” THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S “MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the psychiatric evidence regarding defendant’s “post-crime” mental health (bipolar disorder) was relevant to defendant’s “mental disease or defect” affirmative defense and should not have been precluded. The psychiatrist could not testify defendant suffered from “bipolar disorder” at the time of offense, but could testify that the disorder takes years to develop, which meets the flexible “relevancy” test:

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence” … . …

We conclude that “[i]nasmuch as the psychiatrist’s [prospective] testimony that defendant was suffering from [bipolar disorder, type 1, most recent episode manic with psychotic features] would render a finding of lack of criminal responsibility more probable than it would be without such evidence, the [psychiatrist’s] diagnosis [was] . . . relevant” … . …

Here, although the psychiatrist did not evaluate defendant prior to the crimes and thus could not render a medical opinion that defendant had bipolar disorder on the date of the crimes, “there were indications in [his] testimony that the mental disease from which defendant was suffering could take [years] to develop [before diagnosis] and [that] . . . the [prior medical] records . . . suggest[ed] the existence of some mental disorder a considerable time before the crime[s]” … . …

Finally, we conclude that the error is not harmless … . The preclusion of the psychiatrist’s testimony effectively prevented defendant from mounting his affirmative defense (see Penal Law § 40.15) and severely undermined his ability to separately argue that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit the charged offenses … . Inasmuch as ” ‘it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict, the error cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal therefore is required’ ” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 04095, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the relevancy of evidence. Here a post-crime bipolar disorder diagnosis was deemed relevant to defendant’s “mental disease or defect” affirmatve defense.​

 

, ,

MOTHER’S BEHAVIOR DID NOT AMOUNT TO A FORFEITURE OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the order of Family Court in this visitation proceeding, determined mother was denied her right to counsel. After attempts to assign counsel failed, the judge essentially forced mother to proceed without an attorney:

Pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (a), respondents in visitation proceedings have a right to be represented by counsel and, if they are financially unable to obtain counsel, have the right to have counsel assigned by the court … . * * *

“Here, the record is clear that the mother did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so” … ; as such, “the record . . . does not indicate that [she] made a knowing and intelligent waiver of [her] rights to be represented by counsel” … . It appears from the record that Family Court determined that the mother had forfeited her right to counsel. Indeed, “[a] litigant may forfeit the right to assigned counsel through a persistent pattern of threatening, abusive, obstreperous, and uncooperative behavior with successive assigned counsel” … . However, such a forfeiture is an “extreme, last-resort” based upon “egregious conduct by a [respondent]” … . Simply put, while we are certainly mindful of the difficult position Family Court was in, “the record fails to clearly reflect that the mother engaged in the sort of egregious conduct that would justify a finding that she forfeited her right to assigned counsel” … . Matter of Carlene R. v Heather A., 2026 NY Slip Op 04015, Third Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point: In a Family Court visitation proceeding a party’s waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit. Here it was clear mother did not wish to go forward pro se.

 

 

, , , ,

HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE FOR THIS PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined that the trial judge’s preclusion of evidence based upon the district attorney’s untimely production of discovery was not subject to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the then district attorney:

Granting prohibition here would constitute improper collateral interlocutory review. This point is underscored by the Legislature’s amendment of CPL 450.20 to permit the People to appeal as of right from the portion of an order dismissing an accusatory instrument or some of its counts pursuant to CPL 245.80(2). In enacting this amendment, the Legislature chose to limit the types of appeals available to the People and did not permit the People to appeal from orders granting other remedies or sanctions under CPL 245.80(2), including orders precluding evidence, regardless of whether such orders would prevent the People from prosecuting a case. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, “nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition”  … .

Since a writ of prohibition does not lie, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the enforcement of the order of preclusion.  Matter of Rocah v McCarthy, 2026 NY Slip Op 03967, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A writ of prohibition does not lie to prohibit the enforcement of an order precluding evidence becasue the production of discovery by the People was deemed untimely.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUA SPONTE, AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE PHRASE IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REQUESTING “SUCH OTHER RELIEF” AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a default judgment against defendant Molina in this foreclosure action. There were two defendants, Pena and Molina. Pena answered the complaint but Molina did not. The notice of motion seeking summary judgment did not mention Molina. Therefore the judge should not have granted relief not demanded by the plaintiff:

“Among the statutory requirements [set forth in CPLR 2214(a) and (b)] is that notices of motion set forth ‘the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.’ The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders a resulting order void” … . In other words, “[a] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief against a defaulting party where that relief is not requested in the moving papers” … .

Here, since the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against Molina, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted that relief … . As the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief … , so much of the order … , as, sua sponte, granted leave to enter a default judgment against Molina was rendered void … , “‘warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … . As to the court’s reliance on the language in the notice of motion seeking “such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” this Court has explicitly held that courts may not “rely upon general relief clauses in noticed motions—’for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper’—to justify the sua sponte [granting of dispositive relief]” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Pena, 2026 NY Slip Op 03940, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: The phrase in motion papers requesting “such other relief as is deemed appropriate” cannot be the basis for dispositive relief.​

 

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