You are here: / Judges
,

HERE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the superior court information, determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because there was not evidence it was signed in open court:

A defendant “may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney,” and “such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel” … . Although the record reflects that defendant orally agreed to waive indictment in open court on November 19, 2020, the written waiver of indictment, which defendant and defense counsel acknowledged signing, is dated November 17, 2020, and the minutes do not demonstrate that defendant signed the waiver in open court, as constitutionally mandated. “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea” … . “Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on [October 14, 2020], nor County Court’s undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court” on November 19, 2020 … . “In light of this jurisdictional defect, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information must be dismissed” … . People v Berry, 2023 NY Slip Op 06410, Third Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here the waiver of indictment was deemed invalid because there was no indication the waiver was signed in open court, which is a jurisdictional defect. The superior court information was therefore dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DECIDED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S AGREED-UPON SENTENCE BASED UPON HER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY PROBATION FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT ASK FOR THE ENHANCED SENTENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, THEREBY DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, over a dissent, determined that the defense was not given an opportunity to address the sentencing judge’s sua sponte decision to enhance the agreed-upon sentence based on defendant’s responses to questions posed by probation for the presentence report. The prosecutor did not see any conflict between defendant’s plea allocution and her responses in the report and did not call for an enhanced sentence: So the defense was taken by surprise.. Defense counsel requested a hearing but the request was denied:

After the parties had an opportunity to state their arguments, the court engaged in a lengthy colloquy before … stating that it disagreed with the People’s conclusion that there was no violation of the plea agreement and determining that it would enhance defendant’s sentence to the maximum allowable term of imprisonment. It was at this point that defendant first had any indication that she was facing a potential sentencing enhancement and, in response, defense counsel immediately requested a hearing, which County Court summarily denied.… .In effect, that determination precluded defendant and her counsel an opportunity to refute the accuracy of the officer’s statements in the PSR that were relied upon by the court in finding that she had violated a condition of her plea by failing to answer the probation officer’s questions truthfully … . Moreover, County Court made no further inquiry as to whether defendant understood the questions asked during her Probation Department interview and whether she had answered them untruthfully or contrary to her statements at her plea proceedings … .

While a hearing is not necessarily required in all instances, the circumstances before us warranted some form of inquiry before County Court could impose an enhanced sentence … . People v Dibble, 2023 NY Slip Op 06411, Third Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: When the judge, sua sponte, decided to enhance defendant’s agreed-upon sentence because of defendant’s responses to questions posed by probation for the presentence report, defense counsel immediately requested a hearing to address the issue (which had not been raised by the prosecution). The request was denied. The Third Department agreed that a hearing was required in this case and vacated the sentence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Bloom was entitled to a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint:

Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server indicated that the process server served Bloom at an address on Avenue W in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Avenue W address) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint upon a cotenant, who was a person of suitable age and discretion, on May 4, 2019, and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to Bloom at the Avenue W address on May 6, 2019. However, Bloom’s submission of a sworn statement in which she denied that she resided at the Avenue W address, and a copy of her driver license, which listed a different address as her residence at the time that service upon her was allegedly effectuated, contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit … . Therefore, the presumption of proper service upon Bloom was rebutted and the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Bloom was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Garrick v Charles, 2023 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Here defendant presented specific facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper services of process. A hearing should have been ordered.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to renew should have been granted and defendant should have been granted more time to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff:

“A motion for leave to renew or reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without prejudice, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew. The defendant presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motion, and demonstrated that the new evidence would have changed the prior determination … . Moreover, the papers submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, as supplemented by the papers submitted by the plaintiff, which expressly incorporated the plaintiff’s prior opposition, were sufficient to determine the motion …. Fulcher v Empire State Grand Council Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite Masons, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06352, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: The motion to renew presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present those facts in the prior motion. The motion should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEAS, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant was not warned about the possibility of deportation based upon his guilty pleas. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate the pleas:

The defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court … to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall set forth whether the defendant moved to vacate his pleas of guilty and, if so, its determination as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Jean, 2023 NY Slip Op 06380, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: If the record does not demonstrate a defendant was aware of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, the matter will be remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

THE PATIENT IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY DID NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVE HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS PROCEEDING TO PROVIDE TREATMENT WITHOUT HER CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Susan K., a psychiatric patient, did not voluntarily waiver her right to counsel in this proceeding to provide treatment without her consent:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding for permission to administer electro-convulsive therapy and various proposed psychotropic drugs to Susan K., a patient at a psychiatric facility, without her consent. Following a hearing, at which the Supreme Court permitted Susan K. to proceed pro se, the court issued an order authorizing the petitioner to administer the proposed course of treatment over Susan K.’s objection. Susan K. appeals. * * *

Supreme Court did not discuss with Susan K. the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, did not apprise Susan K. “of the ‘importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication,'” and did not elicit an acknowledgment that Susan K. understood the perils of self-representation … . Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry of Susan K. to ensure that her waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, we must reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new hearing and a new determination after proper advisements and inquiry into Susan K.’s understanding of the consequences of self-representation. Matter of Susan K. (Hamilton), 2023 NY Slip Op 06369, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Here a psychiatric patient represented herself in a proceeding seeking to provide treatment without her consent. The judge did not make sure the patient understood the dangers of self-representation. Matter remitted.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily dismissed defendant’s serious request for new counsel without making an inquiry and factual findings. Defendant’s right to counsel was violated:

In 2017, the defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, among other crimes. While the matter was pending, the defendant submitted to the Supreme Court a writing, dated December 24, 2018, in which he claimed that he had had no conferences or meetings with his assigned counsel, that counsel had failed to appear in court on several control dates, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication between the defendant and counsel, and that counsel’s omnibus motion contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The defendant also requested a six-week adjournment to attempt to secure representation from a particular attorney who purportedly had agreed to represent the defendant.

At a pretrial proceeding on January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s application without making any inquiry. During a subsequent appearance, in June 2019, the defendant read a lengthy statement in which he recounted that his prior application was denied and listed his reasons for not wanting to be represented by his assigned counsel. * * *

… Supreme Court’s conduct in summarily denying the defendant’s application for an adjournment, without conducting any inquiry, and telling him that the court would not relieve assigned counsel and that his alternative was to represent himself pro se, violated the defendant’s right to counsel …. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 06261, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: A serious request for new counsel should not be summarily denied without an inquiry. Here defendant was denied his right to counsel by the judge’s failure to address his request. A new trial before a different judge was ordered.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING DID NOT MAKE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT, REQUIRING REMITTAL; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN PART BECAUSE COUNSEL DID NOT ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-assessment, noted that the judge failed to set forth all of the relevant findings of fact and determined defense counsel was ineffective. Defense counsel was not aware that youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court and defense counsel failed to argue for a downward departure. The departure would have been warranted because defendant, who was 17 at the time, had been charged with a misdemeanor based on having sex with his girlfriend:

Failure to comply with the statutory mandate to make detailed findings on the record would alone require that the matter be remitted to County Court … . * * *

The only argument advanced by defendant’s counsel at the SORA hearing was a challenge to the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, on the basis that a youthful offender adjudication should be precluded in assessing defendant’s sex offender classification. That argument, however, was devoid of merit … , and demonstrated counsel’s unfamiliarity with existing and applicable case law … . * * *

… [Counsel] did not request a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three classification. The crime underlying the youthful offender adjudication was the class A misdemeanor of sexual misconduct … , stemming from defendant, who had just turned 17, having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, who was about two months younger. Downward departure has been found appropriate where there is a “relatively slight age difference between [the] defendant and the victim [and] undisputed evidence that the victim’s lack of consent was premised only on her inability to consent by virtue of her age” … . Notwithstanding facts and case law that could support a reasonable argument for a downward departure here, counsel failed to make such a request. In our view, the foregoing establishes that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Wilcox, 2023 NY Slip Op 06175, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level proceeding is required to make detailed findings of fact.

Practice Point: Defense counsel in a SORA risk-level proceeding is ineffective if counsel is not aware youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court.

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, issued a writ of prohibition against the respondent County Judge nullifying the order dismissing the murder indictment against defendant. The petitioner was the district attorney (DA) who was prosecuting defendant. The DA disagreed with certain preclusion orders issued by the Judge and argued the prosecution of the defendant was rendered impossible by the preclusion of evidence. The DA refused to participate in the trial. At trial, in the DA’s absence, the Judge dismissed the indictment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 290.10. Because such a dismissal requires a trial as a prerequisite, and because there was no trial, the Third Department held the Judge did not have the authority to dismiss the indictment:

Upon a criminal defendant’s motion, a court may dismiss any count of an indictment on the basis that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the charged crime (see CPL 290.10 [1] [a]). Critically, a court is empowered to do so “[a]t the conclusion of the [P]eople’s case or at the conclusion of all the evidence” (CPL 290.10 [1]). Based on this language, a dismissal under CPL 290.10 contemplates, at the very least, that a prosecutor actually present a case. This did not occur in the underlying criminal proceeding. Petitioner did not deliver an opening statement, did not call witnesses and did not tender documentary evidence to be received by respondent. Without a case by petitioner, respondent could not dismiss the indictment under CPL 290.10 … . In essence, the dismissal of the indictment was due to the default of petitioner, which respondent lacked authority to do … . Matter of Clegg v Rounds, 2023 NY Slip Op 06181, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: If the prosecutor refuses to participate in the trial, the judge cannot dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10. The statute requires a trial as a prerequisite. Here there was no trial. The prosecutor’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the judge was granted. The “trial” was nullified.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT ORDER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s order failed to included the required findings of fact. In addition, the Attorney General should have been notified of defendant’s constitutional arguments:

County Court’s order failed to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3). The March 2022 order states that at a hearing held on an unspecified date, the court “set out its findings of fact . . . which support the assignment of points for each risk factor.” No such findings are set forth in the order and, if placed on the record at the hearing, no hearing transcript is contained in the record. Absent any record findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court, this Court is precluded from conducting a meaningful appellate review of the assessment of points and defendant’s risk level classification. As such, the matter must be remitted … . Further, to the extent that defendant raises direct constitutional challenges to certain portions of Correction Law § 168, as set forth in his memorandum submitted to County Court, the record is devoid of any indication that the Attorney General was timely notified of such challenges or whether the court ruled on any of the issues raised. In view of the foregoing, County Court’s March 30, 2022 order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings. People v Kelsey, 2023 NY Slip Op 06186, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The Correction Law requires that an order in a SORA risk-level proceeding include findings of fact.

Practice Point: Where a defendant raises constitutional arguments in a SORA risk-level proceeding, the Attorney General must be notified.

 

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