You are here: / Judges
, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT VALID; THE COURT’S TERSE INQUIRY ABOUT THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS NOT CURED BY DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A MORE DETAILED WRITTEN WAIVER AFTER SHE WAS SENTENCED AND MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction but noted that the waiver of appeal was not valid:

The record reflects that County Court failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver to defendant, and the court’s terse inquiry, wherein defendant was asked, “Do you understand that as part of this disposition, you’re agreeing to waive your right to appeal” and that “normally . . . you have the right to appeal your plea and your sentence,” was insufficient to ensure that defendant appreciated the nature and consequences of the rights that she was relinquishing … . Further, despite defendant’s execution of a more detailed written waiver, such was executed after she was sentenced and more than a year after the plea was entered … .. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to appeal … . People v Crispell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01843, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: The court did not explain the separate and distinct nature of an appeal waiver, as opposed to the waiver of the right to a trial. The inadequacy of the court’s explanation was not cured by the more detailed written waiver which was executed after defendant was sentenced and more than a year after the plea.

 

, , ,

IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a nonjury trial, determined four out-of-court statements made by the alleged victim in this sexual-offense case should not have been admitted a “excited utterances.” Although two of the statements were “prompt outcries,” under that theory only the fact of a complaint, not the details (as provided here) are admissible:

… [T]he trial court admitted four statements made by the alleged victim following the incident, reasoning that they were admissible both as excited utterances and prompt outcries. This was error. The alleged victim’s out-of-court statements did not qualify as excited utterances and should not have been admitted for their substance under that hearsay exception …  . Although two of the four statements were correctly admitted under the alternative theory that they constituted prompt outcries, under this exception, “only the fact of a complaint, not its accompanying details” is admissible … . It is clear from the record that the trial court considered all four hearsay statements for their substance, and thus, there can be no presumption that the court, as the finder of fact, considered only competent evidence … .. Given the People’s strong reliance on the hearsay statements to prove its case, and the court’s indication that it intended to review the written statement that was in evidence during deliberation, we cannot say that “the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming” and that the error was therefore harmless … . People v Gideon, 2022 NY Slip Op 01746, First Dept 3-15-22

​Practice Point: In this nonjury sexual-offense prosecution the court erred by admitting out-of-court statements by the alleged victim under the “prompt outcry” theory. Only the fact of the complaint is admissible, not the accompanying details.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON EVIDENCE GIVEN AT A MATERIAL WITNESS HEARING, FROM WHICH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED, AT A SUBSEQUENT SIROIS HEARING AT WHICH THE WITNESS DID NOT TESTIFY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should not have relied upon evidence given at a material witness hearing, from which the defendant was properly excluded, at a subsequent Sirois hearing at which the material witness did not testify:

At [the material witness] hearing, the witness … testified that she had been threatened by defendant, the codefendant, and others in an attempt to prevent her from testifying at trial. Although the court granted the People’s application for a material witness order and set bail to ensure the witness’s availability, the next day the People requested a Sirois hearing and sought a determination that the witness had been made constructively unavailable to testify at trial by threats attributable to defendant … . …

A defendant generally has no constitutional right to be present at a material witness hearing … ; however, a “[d]efendant’s absence from [a Sirois] hearing[] could have a substantial effect on his [or her] ability to defend” … . Here, although there is no dispute that the initial material witness hearing was not intended to address any Sirois or other evidentiary issues … , the court erred in relying on the unchallenged testimony taken therein in making its Sirois determination … . Indeed, the court effectively, and erroneously, incorporated the material witness hearing into the subsequent Sirois hearing by expressly relying on that testimony and on its own observations of the witness’s demeanor in making its determination. People v Phillips, 2022 NY Slip Op 01710, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: The judge relied on the witness’s testimony at a material witness hearing, at which defendant was not present, for his ruling in a Sirois hearing, at which the witness did not testify. Defendant was thereby deprived of his right to confront the witnesses against him at the Sirois hearing. New trial ordered.

 

, ,

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on several counts, determined the judge’s curtailing of the cross-examination of a detective concerning statements attributed the the victim in this sexual-offense prosecution was not harmless error as to those (reversed) counts:

” ‘Once a proper foundation is laid, a party may show that an adversary’s witness has, on another occasion, made oral or written statements which are inconsistent with some material part of the trial testimony, for the purpose of impeaching the credibility and thereby discrediting the testimony of the witness’ ” … . “To lay the foundation for contradiction, it is necessary to ask the witness specifically whether he [or she] has made such statements; and the usual and most accurate mode of examining the contradicting witness, is to ask the precise question put to the principal witness” … . Here, defendant laid a proper foundation by eliciting testimony from the victim that was inconsistent with the detective’s written report purporting to record the victim’s statement, and the court therefore should have permitted cross-examination of the detective regarding that inconsistency … . …

The testimony of the victim was the only direct evidence supporting count one of the indictment, charging criminal sexual act in the third degree, counts three and four of the indictment, charging sexual abuse in the third degree, and counts six and eight of the indictment, charging endangering the welfare of a child. We conclude that the admissible evidence of guilt with respect to those counts is not overwhelming, and that there is a reasonable possibility that the error in curtailing defense counsel’s cross-examination of the detective may have contributed to defendant’s conviction. People v Kilgore, 2022 NY Slip Op 01709, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: It was error for the judge to curtail the cross-examination of  a detective about statements attributed to the victim in this sexual offense prosecution. The error was deemed reversible with respect to some counts, and harmless with respect to others.

 

, ,

A DETECTIVE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; TESTIMONY ABOUT THE “BLINDED” PHOTO ARRAY IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED; THE DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A WITNESS’S CRIMINAL HISTORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED; ANY ERRORS DEEMED HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, finding any evidentiary errors harmless, determined: (1) a detective was properly allowed to identify the defendant in a surveillance video because the People demonstrated the detective had prior contacts with the defendant; (2) testimony about the “blinded” photo identification procedure was properly allowed; and (3) the defense cross-examination about a witness’s criminal history should not have been curtailed by the judge:

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the challenged testimony because the People presented evidence establishing that the police detective was familiar with defendant based on several prior contacts with defendant over the course of several years. Thus, there “was some basis for concluding that the [police detective] was more likely to identify defendant correctly than was the jury” … . …

Testimony about a photo array procedure, and the array itself, may be admitted where, inter alia, the procedure is ” ‘blinded,’ ” that is, where the person administering the array procedure does not know the suspect’s position in the array (CPL 60.25 [1] [c] [ii]; see CPL 60.30). Here, although the array viewed by the witness was created by the police detective who administered the procedure, the specific procedure conducted was nevertheless blind because the police detective placed three different arrays in envelopes, which he shuffled before having the witness pick one. This procedure is sufficient, in our view, to ensure that, at the time the witness was viewing the array, the police detective did not know the position of defendant in that array … . …

“[C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony” … . … [W]e conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness’s prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness’s credibility and were not remote or cumulative … . People v Griffin, 2022 NY Slip Op 01698, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: Because the detective had prior contact with the defendant, the detective was properly allowed to identify defendant in a surveillance video.

Practice Point: Testimony about the “blinded” photo array identification procedure was properly allowed.

Practice Point: The defense cross-examination about the witness’s criminal history should not have been curtailed.

 

,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on the ground plaintiff failed to timely file a note of issue and failed to comply with a prior discovery order because plaintiff had not been served with a valid 90-day notice:

The Supreme Court improperly, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely file a note of issue and failed to comply with a prior discovery order of the court. Because the plaintiff was not served with a valid 90-day demand to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the court had no authority to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to timely file a note of issue … . Further, the plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with the discovery order did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … .Moreau v Cayton,, 2022 NY Slip Op 01450, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint, even though plaintiff had not timely filed a note of issue and had not complied with a prior discovery order, because the plaintiff had not been served with a valid 90-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacated defendant’s resentence. Once a defendant is sentenced, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. Here, after it was determined defendant had willfully failed to pay the ordered restitution, defendant was resentenced to prison on the original conviction. By statute a defendant may be resentenced for failure pay restitution, but only after the court makes a finding the defendant is unable to pay due to indigency. No such finding was made here:

CPL 420.10 (3) provides that, when a court imposes restitution as part of a defendant’s sentence, the court can imprison the defendant if he or she fails to pay restitution; such provision authorizing imprisonment for failure to pay restitution can be set forth at the time of sentencing or may be added “at any later date while the . . . restitution . . . or any part thereof remains unpaid” (CPL 420.10 [3]). Although County Court therefore retained jurisdiction under the auspices of this statute, it erred in resentencing defendant pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5). As relevant here, CPL 420.10 (5) provides that, “[i]n any case where the defendant is unable to pay a fine, restitution or reparation imposed by the court, he [or she] may at any time apply to the court for resentence.” Resentencing is authorized “if the court is satisfied that the defendant is unable to pay the fine, restitution or reparation” (CPL 420.10 [5]). Here, there was no finding by the court that defendant was unable to pay the restitution due to indigency … . … [W]e refuse to equate defendant’s acceptance of the global agreement [agreeing to 81/2 to 25 years in prison including time served] with the application necessary to resentence him under CPL 420.10 (5) … . County Court could have sentenced defendant to a year in prison for his failure to pay under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4), but it did not. As it erred in utilizing CPL 420.10 (5), the resentence must be vacated. People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 01070, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , ,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined: (1) defendant was entitled to and did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the SORA risk-level proceeding (which is civil in nature). despite his decision not to appear; and (2) the SORA judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law, requiring remittal:

Despite SORA proceedings being civil in nature, not criminal … , we now join the Second Department in explicitly holding that SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]) would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant’s liberty interest … .

… Although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, he did not waive his right to contest the Board’s risk level recommendation or the People’s arguments and proof … . Counsel — who acknowledged at the hearing that he had “had no contact” with defendant — made no arguments, essentially agreed to the Board’s recommendation, and failed to require the People to admit any proof at the hearing or County Court to provide any reasoning for its determination. … The record … reveals that counsel, who did not communicate with his client at all and “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication,” did not provide effective representation … . As defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, upon remittal he is entitled to a new hearing with different assigned counsel. People v VonRapacki, 2022 NY Slip Op 01071, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court failed to make the required findings of fact for defendant’s request for a downward departure:

Defendant … argues that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure. Although the court did expressly deny this request in the order, it did not detail the factual findings in support of its conclusion. Thus, we are unable to ascertain the court’s reasoning for denying defendant’s request. Consequently, we reverse and remit for County Court to set forth its findings of fact for denying [*2]defendant’s request for a downward departure as required … . People v Harvey, 2022 NY Slip Op 01073, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

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