You are here: / Judges
, , ,

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE MANDATORY FINES FOR THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OFFENSES; AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED; AN APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT PRECLUDE ARGUING THE PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not voluntary because he was not informed of the mandatory fines for the Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses. Although the error was not preserved, the “no actual or practical ability to object” preservation exception was invoked: An appeal waiver does not preclude the defendant from arguing the plea was involuntary:

An exception to the preservation requirement exists where, as here, a defendant had “no actual or practical ability to object” prior to the imposition of the fines by the sentencing court … . Further, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a plea as involuntary, where the court fails to advise a defendant of a component of their sentence before it is imposed … .

Supreme Court erred in failing to inform defendant at the time of his plea that the sentences for two of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty included mandatory fines (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [a]) The failure to “ensure that . . . defendant, before pleading guilty, ha[d] a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … , requires vacatur of the plea. People v Padilla-Zuniga, 2025 NY Slip Op 01563, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant of mandatory fines renders the guilty plea involuntary.

Practice Point: Here the “no actual or practical ability to object” exception to the preservation requirement applied.

Practice Point: An appeal waiver does not preclude the argument that the plea was involuntarily entered.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS 20 YEARS BUT THE JUDGE REPEATEDLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WAS FACING 45 YEARS; THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently because the judge repeatedly told the defendant he was facing 45 years in prison when his sentence was capped at 20. The dissent argued the error was not preserved:

The issue on appeal is whether defendant Marquese Scott’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Supreme Court made an egregious error during the plea proceedings, repeatedly asserting that defendant faced up to 45 years’ incarceration if found guilty after trial, when his maximum exposure was statutorily capped at 20 years. As we have long recognized, inaccurate information regarding a sentence is a significant factor in determining whether a plea was voluntary. Given defendant’s young age, his inexperience facing serious charges with the risk of consecutive sentencing, and the vast disparity between the plea offer of 6 to 8 years and the court’s erroneous assertion that he faced 25 years more than the law allowed, we hold that defendant’s guilty plea was not the result of a free and informed choice. Accordingly, defendant’s plea cannot stand. * * *

From the dissent:

With only narrow exceptions, we have unequivocally required a defendant to preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of their plea by making “a motion to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10” … . People v Scott, 2025 NY Slip Op 01562, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: A guilty plea entered after the defendant is erroneously told he is facing 45 years in prison when the sentence is statutorily capped at 20 is not voluntary.​

Practice Point: Here the dissent argued the majority should not have carved out a new exception to the preservation requirement to consider the merits of this case.

 

,

FATHER’S RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT; RATHER THE TREATMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that father’s right to file future modification-of-custody petitions should not have been conditioned upon mental health treatment:

“It is well established that a court lacks authority to condition any future application for modification of a parent’s [custody or] visitation on [that parent’s] participation in mental health treatment” … . We therefore modify the order … by striking the provision requiring that the father submit proof that he is engaged in and compliant with mental health counseling with a psychiatrist as a prerequisite to filing a modification petition and providing instead that the father comply with that condition as a component of supervised visitation … . Matter of Shakema R. v Mesha B., 2025 NY Slip Op 01512, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: It is not OK for a judge to condition a party’s ability to file future petitions for modification of custody upon mental health treatment. However treatment can be made a condition for supervised visitation.

 

, ,

IN REINSTATING THE ACTION AFTER VACATING THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS’, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED WHAT SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN A COMPLAINT FOR LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell through the roof of the building he was working on. Apparently plaintiff failed to answer the summary judgment motion because of law office failure. In reinstating the action, the Second Department noted that the causes of action had been adequately pled as follows:​

“‘Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks'” … . “‘To impose liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a violation of the statute and that violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that his fall through the roof was the result of an elevation-related hazard caused by the failure to keep necessary safety devices in place and identified the defendants as the owners of the premises. …

“‘Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed'” … . “‘To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff or a claimant must demonstrate that his [or her] injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was employed in an area where construction was being performed and that his injuries were proximately caused by the failure to comply with applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. ….

“‘Labor Law § 200 essentially codifies landowners’ and general contractors’ common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace'” … . “‘Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a safe place to work and that the defendants controlled and supervised the work at issue. Bayron Chay Mo v Ultra Dimension Place, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of what should be alleged in the complaint for Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action.

 

,

WHERE A DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” THE SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT; IF THE RECORD IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE, THE SENTENCE WILL BE VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant was an “eligible youth” but the record was silent about whether the court considered youthful offender treatment:

“Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain” … . “Where a defendant is an eligible youth, the determination of whether to afford him or her youthful offender treatment must be explicitly made on the record” … . Here, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment … . People v Suckoo, 2025 NY Slip Op 01396, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: If the record does not reflect that the court considered youthful offender treatment for an “eligible youth,” the sentence will be vacated.​

 

,

A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT FOR SENTENCING EXTENDS TO RESENTENCING AND TO THE AMENDMENT OF A SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined defendant had a right to be present at his resentencing:

The defendant was not present at the resentencing proceeding in June 2023 because he was incarcerated in Florida. The Supreme Court nonetheless resentenced the defendant to the same sentence as had been previously imposed.

“A defendant has a fundamental right to be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” … , which “extends to resentencing or to the amendment of a sentence” … . Although the defendant had already completed serving the incarceration portion of his sentence as of resentencing, the defendant had not completed the postrelease supervision component of his sentence, for which the Supreme Court could have resentenced the defendant to a minimum period of 3 years and a maximum period of 10 years (see Penal Law § 70.45[2-a][a]). The defendant was not present at the resentencing proceeding, and the record is devoid of any indication that he waived his right to be present … . People v Allen, 2025 NY Slip Op 01381, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Absent a waiver, a defendant has the right to be personally presented at a resentencing.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE 1994 ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED; DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A HEARING, I.E., EVIDENCE A DECEASED COOPERATING WITNESS HAD CONFESSED TO BEING THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the evidence of “actual innocence” submitted in defendant’s motion to vacate the 1994 attempted murder conviction warranted a hearing:

The court … should have ordered a hearing on defendant’s actual innocence claim … . Defendant presented evidence, supported by the statements of the Assistant United States Attorneys who handled the cooperator, that, in 1998, after defendant’s trial, the cooperator credibly exonerated defendant by admitting to the shooting. Although the cooperator has died, his confession would be admissible as a statement against penal interest … . Accordingly, the court lacked grounds for a summary denial under CPL 440.30(4)(b). People v Davila, 2025 NY Slip Op 01300, First Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate a conviction is supported by credible evidence of “actual innocence,” a hearing is necessary before ruling on the motion.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE APPOINTED STANDBY COUNSEL AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED, THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge did not conduct an adequate inquiry before granting defendant’s request to represent himself. The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for an inquiry to make sure a defendant understands the risks:

… [D]efendant repeatedly conditioned his request on proceeding pro se “with standby [counsel].” In response to defendant’s request, County Court inquired as to whether defendant knew the rule regarding standby counsel. Although defendant replied in the negative, the court provided no further explanation and, instead, proceeded to question defendant about his knowledge of the law. Following a week-long adjournment for defendant to confer with counsel regarding his request to proceed pro se, at the next court appearance, defendant reaffirmed his desire to proceed pro se with standby counsel. Although the court informed defendant that he did not qualify for standby counsel because he seemed to be familiar with some legal terms, defendant responded that he was requesting standby counsel because he does not know everything in the law. The record does not otherwise reflect that defendant was informed of or understood that, despite being permitted to proceed with standby counsel, there were risks inherent in proceeding pro se. Upon this record, we conclude that County Court’s inquiry was insufficient to establish that defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and voluntary and, accordingly, the plea must be vacated … . People v Gray, 2025 NY Slip Op 01259, Third Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for a judge’s responsibility to make an inquiry to ensure the defendant is aware of the risks of representing himself.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FOR-CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for-cause challenge to a prospective juror should have been granted:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who evinced a state of mind that was likely to preclude the prospective juror from rendering an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . “[A] prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . Here, during voir dire, the prospective juror stated that his mother-in-law was a victim of sexual assault and raised his hand when defense counsel asked if any potential jurors felt that this was not the “right case” for them since the sexual assault allegations in this case might make them “too emotional” and might be something they “c[ould not] handle.” Under the circumstances, the prospective juror’s statements raised a serious doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, and the court failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance on the record that the prospective juror could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence … . Since the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges, the denial of his for-cause challenge constitutes reversible error … . People v Faustin, 2025 NY Slip Op 01231, Second Dept 3-5-25

Practice Point: The prospective juror’s statements raised serious doubts about his ability to be impartial in this sexual-offense case. Defendant’s for-cause challenge to the prospective juror should have been granted.​

 

, , ,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS (RAISED BY A DEFENSE INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED WITH THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS) ABOUT WHETHER THE DESCRIPTON OF THE SEARCHED PREMISES IN THE WARRANT WAS ACCURATE, REQUIRING A HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, remanding the matter for a suppression hearing, and finding the appeal waiver invalid, determined there were questions about whether the search warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. The warrant indicated there was only one apartment, with an unmarked tan door. The defendant’s investigator submitted evidence demonstrating there were two apartments, neither with a tan door, and the door to the searched apartment was marked with a number one, while the other apartment door was unmarked:

The plea colloquy contained several defects. It did not make clear, expressly or tacitly, that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the Boykin rights defendant was automatically forfeiting with the plea; the colloquy suggested that the appeal waiver was absolute, offering no clue that some core appellate claims would survive; and, relatedly, the colloquy wrongly indicated that no appeal was permissible on the fundamental issues of whether the plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the sentence was legal.

The written waiver cannot save the oral appeal waiver. The plea court did not confirm that defendant had read the written waiver; the court did not confirm that defendant had discussed the written waiver with counsel; and the court did not confirm that defendant understood the written waiver … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s submissions in support of his omnibus motion call into question whether the search warrant contains a misdescription of the premises to be searched, and, if there is a misdescription, whether it renders the warrant invalid. Specifically, defendant’s omnibus motion submissions raise a question of fact as to whether, based on what the police officer knew or should have known about the premises when the search warrant was sought, the warrant’s description of the target premises was accurate … . [D]efendant here submitted evidence (in particular, the affirmation of the investigator who visited the premises and the photographs of 955 Bruckner Boulevard taken by the investigator) about the “actual conditions of the premises” in support of his omnibus motion … . Additionally, assuming there was a misdescription of the premises to be searched, a question of fact exists as to whether there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would have been searched … .

We cannot resolve the issues raised by defendant’s omnibus motion submissions without a hearing (see CPL 710.60[4]; see also CPL 710.60[2] …). This is not a situation where it is plain from the existing record that there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would be searched regardless of any misdescription … . People v Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a detailed explanation of the criteria for a valid waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: Here the defense investigator submitted evidence which raised a question whether the search warrant accurately described the premises to be searched. The matter was remanded for a hearing.

 

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