You are here: / Judges
, , ,

IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRETRIAL SANDOVAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERVENE; THE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder and weapons convictions, determined prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene (there were no defense objections) required a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned uncharged crimes which were not brought up in the Sandoval proceedings:

During their direct case, however, the People elicited testimony from three different witnesses about a prior bad act that had not been included in their Sandoval/Molineux proffer.  * * *

The prosecutor asked defendant whether the incident, which had occurred approximately a decade earlier, involved him shooting a rifle toward another person. Defendant denied this, and he was then questioned as to whether he tried to reload the rifle but was stopped by bystanders, which he also denied. The prosecutor then asked, “is that how you handle your confrontations, you grab a gun and just fire away?” The prosecutor continued the questioning in this vein by asking defendant whether it was “[k]ind of like . . . … [when] you just fired a warning shot out the window, correct?” The prosecutor subsequently cross-examined defendant relative to the incident involving him shooting someone off a motorcycle — which … was not included in the People’s Sandoval/Molineux motion. … [T]he prosecutor inquired as to whether defendant had stated in a recorded jail call that another inmate had urinated in his bed and that, if he caught who did it, he would stab that person in the neck with a pencil. * * *

… [T]he magnitude of the prosecutor’s misconduct was the fact that County Court made no effort to intervene or otherwise attempt to minimize or alleviate the prejudice being caused to defendant…. . People v Nellis, 2023 NY Slip Op 03046, Third Dept 5-8-23

Practice Point: Although the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene warranted a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly brought up uncharged crimes which were not ruled upon in the Sandoval proceedings.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED MOTHER GUARDIAN OF THE JUVENILE, DISPENSED WITH SERVICE ON FATHER, AND MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL JUVENILE IMMIGRATION STATUS (SJIS); ALL OF THE COMPLICATED, INTERTWINED STATUTORY LAW EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should have been appointed guardian of the juvenile and the court should have made findings to allow the juvenile to apply for special immigration juvenile status (SIJS). Family Court should not have required a birth certificate to prove the juvenile’s age:

Family Court Act § 661(a) permits the Family Court to appoint a guardian for a youth between the ages of 18 and 21 in order to establish that the youth is “dependent on a juvenile court” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]) for purposes of an application for SIJS … . The provisions of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (hereinafter SCPA) apply to the extent they are applicable to guardianship of the person of a minor or infant and do not conflict with the provisions of the Family Court Act … . …

… [T]here is no express requirement to submit certified copies of birth certificates in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) … . … [T]he Family Court is only required to ascertain the juvenile’s age, and there is no statutory requirement that a petitioner submit any particular evidence to establish the juvenile’s age (see id.; SCPA 1706[1]). Here, for purposes of this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a), the record supports a finding that the child is under the age of 21 … . …

Family Court should have granted the guardianship petition and the mother’s motions to dispense with service on the father and for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. Matter of Joel A. A. R. (Eddy A. A. G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02881, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here the complicated, intertwined statutory law controlling special juvenile immigration status (SJIS), as well as the related evidentiary requirements in Family Court,  are explained in some depth.

 

,

WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE MUST BE READ OR SHOWN TO THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES MUST BE ALLOWED INPUT RE: THE PROPER RESPONSE; HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not follow proper procedure re: notes received from the jury during deliberations:

The court did not follow the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270[1991]) with regard to several jury notes. The record does not reflect that the court read or showed four of the jury’s notes to the parties or afforded them an opportunity to provide input regarding the proper response to the notes. Indeed, the record contains no indication that these four notes, each of which sought trial exhibits, were responded to at all. While “[n]otes that only require the ministerial act of sending exhibits into the jury room do not implicate the requirements of O’Rama” and CPL 310.30 … , notes that do not unambiguously describe the requested exhibits warrant input from counsel and are subject to O’Rama’s requirement of meaningful notice. Here, at least two of the notes that the court did not address fall into this latter category. Because of this mode of proceedings error, a new trial is called for. People v Baptiste, 2023 NY Slip Op 02835, First Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Although the judge need not share with the parties a note from the jury which requires only a ministerial act, the judge must share a note which is ambiguous about which exhibits are requested. The failure to share the note requires reversal and a new trial.

 

, ,

A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST BE DENIED IF IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY’S CASE, EVEN IF THE MOTION HAS MERIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law in this foreclosure action was premature because it was made before the close of plaintiff’s case:

During the trial, the defendant objected to the admission of a copy of the underlying note. The Supreme Court declined to admit the note into evidence, and the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing that the plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case. … [T]he court granted the defendant’s motion, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and directed the County Clerk to cancel and discharge the notice of pendency. …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him was made before the close of the plaintiff’s case, and was not based upon an admission by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been denied as premature … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Waheed, 2023 NY Slip Op 02774, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 must be denied as premature if it is brought before the opposing party closes its case, even in the motion has merit.

 

,

THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTROOM DURING TESTIMONY HAD THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP) ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the procedure imposed by the judge effectively prevented members of the murder victim’s family from attending parts of the trial. Although the judge did not mean to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not letting members of the public into the courtroom during testimony was improperly implemented and had the unintended result of excluding members of the public. The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge concurrence, ordered a new trial:

The trial judge is in charge of the courtroom and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that any limitation on a defendant’s right to a public trial conforms with constitutional dictates. At defendant’s trial, the judge delegated to court officers the implementation of the judge’s general policy of prohibiting the public from entering or exiting the courtroom while a witness testifies. We agree with the Appellate Division that members of the public were excluded from the courtroom at a time when they should have had access under the terms of the extant policy. But, contrary to the Appellate Division’s conclusion, that error directly resulted from the acts of court officials enforcing the trial judge’s order. Therefore, the court violated defendant’s right to a public trial. People v Muhammad, 2023 NY Slip Op 02756, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Even if the judge did not intend to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not allowing anyone to enter the courtroom during testimony had that effect. New trial ordered.

 

,

THE JUDGE CLOSED THIS MURDER TRIAL TO THE PUBLIC CITING “INTIMIDATION” BY SPECTATORS AND THE POSTING OF A PHOTO OF THE TRIAL ON INSTAGRAM; THE SPARSE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT CLOSING THE COURTROOM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the record did not support holding the murder trial in a courtroom closed to the public. The judge reacted to spectators deemed “intimidating” and the posting on Instagram of a photo taken in the courtroom with a caption supporting the defendant:

… [T]he People moved to close the courtroom, citing the fact that photographs had been taken in the courtroom and posted on Instagram with the caption “Free Dick Wolf”—which the prosecutor asserted was a reference to one of defendant’s street names. After an off-the-record discussion with counsel, the court noted its concern with the photographs, and added that

“[p]eople in the courtroom have been very intimidating. . . . They intimidated a court reporter already. They stare people down. They’re staring up here. I am closing this courtroom based on the fact that now there are pictures that were taken in this courtroom. And I know that pictures can be taken very [surreptitiously] with a cellphone. You can look like you’re looking at your cellphone when you’re really taking pictures. But clearly pictures were taken in this courtroom by someone who had to have been sitting in this courtroom and pictures were taken outside the court. I’m closing the courtroom.”  * * *

Although the prevention of intimidation by spectators during trial may very well be an “overriding interest” that can support courtroom closure … , it is incumbent on the trial court to ensure that the record adequately justifies its concerns and demonstrates that the identified interest would be jeopardized absent a closure. Where closure is warranted, it must be tailored to address the overriding interest. Here, the court ordered the broadest possible closure, completely excluding all members of the public for the remainder of trial. On this sparse record the closure was disproportionate in relation to the circumstances described. People v Reid, 2023 NY Slip Op 02755, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Closing the courtroom during a trial is a drastic measure which must be justified on the record. Here the sparse record was deemed insufficient and a new trial was ordered.

 

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief which was not requested by any party:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed the plaintiffs to prepare documents for a closing and to schedule a closing, or to pay to the defendant 27% of the profits of the plaintiff corporations. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party”… . Here, no party sought the relief granted, which could be prejudicial to the appealing plaintiffs … . Newburgh Commercial Dev. Corp. v Cappelletti, 2023 NY Slip Op 02670, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A judge’s power to grant relief sua sponte (relief not requested) is limited and such relief will not be affirmed if any party has been prejudiced.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A SIROIS HEARING ON WHETHER HE PROCURED THE VICTIM’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was entitled to a Sirois hearing. The People argued the victim’s statement should be placed in evidence because the defendant had procured her silence at trial. But the evidence on the issue was conflicting, necessitating a hearing:

… “[D]efendant should have been afforded an opportunity to test the causal link between [the victim’s refusal to testify at trial and the jail calls], as [defendant] requested, at a separate hearing” … . Although the People contend that a hearing was not necessary because the jail calls “so overwhelming[ly]” establish that the victim’s silence was procured by defendant’s misconduct, “this conclusion . . . is not the test inasmuch as [this Court] cannot evaluate the record in its present state since no hearing was held” … . Moreover, although a defendant may waive a hearing … , that did not occur here. There is no evidence in the record that defendant agreed to forego a hearing or agreed to proceed without further inquiry. In fact, when Supreme Court ruled on the ultimate Sirois issue, rather than on whether the People had “allege[d] specific facts which demonstrate a distinct possibility that a criminal defendant has engaged in witness tampering” such that a hearing was required … , defendant’s trial counsel, the next day, prior to any opening statements, requested a hearing … . The court, however, refused this request, reiterating that it found that the People met their ultimate burden on their submissions. Given this, we find that Supreme Court erred by casting aside “the constitutionally guaranteed truth-testing devices of confrontation and cross-examination … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence about whether a defendant procured a witness’s refusal to testify, the judge should not rule on it without holding a hearing.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT TESTIFED THE VICTIM WAS ON TOP OF HIM REPEATEDLY STRIKING HIM IN THE HEAD WHEN HE PULLED OUT HIS FIREARM AND SHOT THE VICTIM; EVEN IF DEFENDANT’S VERSION WAS DEEMED UNLIKELY, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense. Defendant testified he was on the ground with the victim on top of him, repeatedly striking him in the head, when he drew his weapon and shot the victim:

“Even if [the … victim] had not already employed deadly physical force against . . . defendant at the time . . . defendant allegedly used deadly physical force against [the … victim], the question remains whether . . . defendant could reasonably have believed that the use of such force against him was imminent” … . The … victim was not armed, but defendant testified that he knew that the … victim owned at least one gun and that, at the time of the shooting, he did not know whether the … victim was armed. Further, defendant’s testimony that the … victim pinned him down and was repeatedly punching his face and head could support a finding that defendant reasonably believed that such conduct presented an imminent threat of deadly force inasmuch as “[t]he natural and probable consequences of repeatedly striking a man while he is on the ground defenseless is that he will sustain a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10)” … . Although defendant’s version of the incident may be “dubious, a trial court is required to give the justification charge even where the defendant’s version of events is ‘extraordinarily unlikely’ ” … . People v Swanton, 2023 NY Slip Op 02433, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: Here defendant testified he was on the ground with the victim on top of him, repeatedly striking him in the head, when he pulled out his firearm and shot the victim. Even though the victim was not using deadly force, and even if the defendant’s version of events was deemed unlikely, defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense; new trial ordered.

 

,

ONE OF THE GRAND JURORS HAD A FELONY CONVICTION RENDERING THE GRAND JURY ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED WAS IRRELEVANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the grand jury was illegally constituted because one of the jurors had a felony conviction. The indictment should have been dismissed without considering whether defendant was prejudiced:

CPL 210.20 (1) (c) authorizes a court to dismiss an indictment on the ground that “[t]he grand jury proceeding was defective, within the meaning of [CPL] 210.35.” As relevant here, CPL 210.35 provides that “[a] grand jury proceeding is defective . . . when . . . [t]he grand jury was illegally constituted” … . A grand jury is illegally constituted when … one of its members is not qualified to serve as a juror pursuant to the Judiciary Law … . Here, it is undisputed that the grand jury was illegally constituted because one of the grand jurors had been convicted of a felony, rendering him unqualified to serve as a grand juror (see Judiciary Law §§ 501, 510 [3]).

Despite the illegally constituted grand jury, the court nonetheless determined that dismissal of the indictment was unwarranted inasmuch as the alleged defect did not result in any prejudice to defendant. We conclude that it was error for the court to require a showing of prejudice before dismissing the indictment for a violation of CPL 210.35 (1). The Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he clear intention of [the drafters of CPL 210.35] was to establish a rule of automatic dismissal [of an indictment] for a limited number of improprieties that were deemed most serious”—including, inter alia, “the specific defect[] delineated in” CPL 210.35 (1) … . With respect to those most serious improprieties, “judicial inquiries into prejudice to the accused or other forms of actual harm are wholly out of place” … . Any consideration of prejudice is limited to defects alleged in connection with the catchall provision of CPL 210.35 (5) … . Here … there is no dispute that the grand jury proceedings were defective under CPL 210.35 (1) due to the presence of the unqualified grand juror, and therefore the court should have automatically dismissed the indictment without requiring any showing of prejudice by defendant … . People v Ashley, 2023 NY Slip Op 02432, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: If one member of a grand jury has a felony conviction, the grand jury is illegally constituted requiring automatic dismissal of the indictment. Whether the defendant was prejudiced is irrelevant.

 

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