You are here: / Judges
, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction and dismissing the count, and reversing the gang assault and assault first convictions, determined: (1) Brady material was withheld by redacting the name of a 911 caller who indicated defendant was not involved in the assault; (2) cross-examination of a police officer about a discrepancy between a complainant’s testimony and a statement attributed to the complainant in a police report should have been allowed; and (3) the judge should have inquired further after a juror indicated she “was not sure” about some of the convictions when the jury was polled:

While the contents of the 911 call may have provided some clues as to the identity of the caller, the defendant should not be forced to guess as to the identity of this caller. In addition, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the caller’s identity and contact information would have led to evidence that would have changed the result of the proceedings … . …

… [T]he court erred in precluding defense counsel from questioning the police witness about the contents of the report and the alleged prior inconsistent statement of complainant one …  . …

… [W]hen the jury was polled and asked if the verdict was theirs, juror number nine stated, “Um, I’m not sure, with some, but most of them, yes.” Although the Supreme Court thereafter inquired of juror number nine if the verdict announced to the court was her own, it did so by asking her “is that a yes or a no” in the presence of the remaining jurors, despite evidence before the court suggesting that juror number nine may have succumbed to pressure to vote with the majority even though she did not agree with the verdict as to certain counts. The court’s inquiry was therefore not sufficient … . People v Ramunni, 2022 NY Slip Op 02022, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here Brady material, the identity of a 911 caller, was withheld, cross-examination about inconsistent statements attributed to a complainant was not allowed, and a juror who, when polled, said she may not have agreed with verdict was not sufficiently questioned by the judge. One count of the indictment was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered on the gang assault and assault first counts.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating one conviction and reducing the sentence for another, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction over the unpreserved errors, determined defendant had been deprived of his right to confront a witness against him and the judge imposed a harsher sentence because defendant exercised his right to a trial:

… [T]he defendant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a DMV employee who was directly involved in sending out the suspension notices or who had personal familiarity with the mailing practices of the DMV’s central mail room or with the defendant’s driving record … . Thus, the testimony of the DMV employee was improperly admitted in order to establish an essential element of the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . …

… [P]rior to trial, the Supreme Court made its own plea offer to the defendant of an aggregate term of 1½ years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of 2 years of postrelease supervision in full satisfaction of the 16-count indictment … .The court … stated to the defendant: “You should understand the way I operate is as follows: Before trial with me you get mercy; after trial you get justice” … . The defendant declined the plea offer and proceeded to trial, after which he was acquitted of the top counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court then sentenced the defendant on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree to a term of 5 years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years. People v Ellerbee, 2022 NY Slip Op 02016, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here the DMV employee who had personal knowledge of the mailing of the license suspension notice to defendant and the defendant’s driving record apparently was not called as a witness. Therefore defendant was deprived of his right to confront the witness about an essential element of the offense. In addition, the judge imposed a much harsher sentence than that offered as part of a plea bargain. The judge thereby penalized the defendant because he chose to go the trial. Both of these errors were not preserved for appeal but were considered in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined appellant, an online local news outlet, should not have been excluded from an attorney-disqualification hearing and was entitled to a transcript of the hearing. The respondent in a neglect proceeding had moved to disqualify the deputy county attorney on conflict of interest grounds. Appellant’s owner deemed the motion newsworthy because the deputy county attorney had just been elected City-Court Judge. When appellant’s owner attempted to attend the disqualification hearing he was denied entry:

… “[T]he general public may be excluded from any hearing under [Family Court Act] article [10] and only such persons and the representatives of authorized agencies admitted thereto as have an interest in the case” (§ 1043). In making that determination, however, “[a]ny exclusion of courtroom observers must . . . be accomplished in accordance with 22 NYCRR 205.4 (b)” … . That rule provides that “[t]he general public or any person may be excluded from a courtroom [in Family Court] only if the judge presiding in the courtroom determines, on a case-by-case basis based upon supporting evidence, that such exclusion is warranted in that case” … . The rule further provides certain nonexclusive factors that a Family Court judge may consider in exercising his or her discretion, and requires that the judge make findings prior to ordering any exclusion … .

… [T]he court abused its discretion in excluding appellant from the hearing on the underlying disqualification motion. … [T]he court violated 22 NYCRR 205.4 (b) by failing to make findings prior to ordering the exclusion, and … there is no indication … that the court rendered its determination based on … evidence or considered any of the relevant factors in exercising its discretion. Moreover, … the court lacked an adequate basis to exclude appellant from the hearing on the disqualification motion … . * * *

… [T]he release of the transcript is consistent with Family Court Act § 166 and 22 NYCRR 205.5. … [T]he statute provides in relevant part that although “[t]he records of any proceeding in the family court shall not be open to indiscriminate public inspection[,] . . . the court in its discretion in any case may permit the inspection of any papers or records” … . The statute thus “does not render Family Court records confidential, but merely provides that they are not open to indiscriminate public inspection” … . The statute makes clear that Family Court “has the discretionary statutory authority to permit the inspection of any record by anyone at any time … .Matter of Rajea T. (Niasia J.), 2022 NY Slip Op 01940, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Although the general public can be excluded from Family Court Article 10 proceedings, the judge exercising the discretion to exclude an observer must make certain findings in accordance with 22 NYCRR 205-4 (b). Family Court here made no findings and abused its discretion by excluding the news outlet. The court proceeding concerned whether the county attorney handling the neglect case should be disqualified on conflict of interest grounds, and did not concern the underlying allegations of neglect. The news outlet is entitled to a transcript of the hearing.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PRONOUNCE THE DEFINITE TERM COMPONENT OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE AND REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing, determined the definite term component of the sentence was not pronounced by the court:

CPL 380.20 provides that a court “must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered.” That statutory requirement is “unyielding” … . A violation of CPL 380.20 “may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding [any] valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review” … . “When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … .

Here, although the certificate of conviction states that defendant was sentenced to a split sentence of a definite term of time served in jail and five years of probation, which is consistent with the sentencing promise made during the plea proceeding, the court failed to orally pronounce during the sentencing proceeding the definite term component of defendant’s sentence as required by CPL 380.20 … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 01921, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Every component of a sentence must be “pronounced” by the judge in open court or the sentence will be vacated.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the criteria for imposing the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% were not met:

… [T]he judgment … is … modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the surcharge to 5% of the amount of restitution … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in imposing the 10% surcharge because there was no ” ‘filing of an affidavit of the official or organization designated pursuant to [CPL 420.10 (8)] demonstrating that the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution . . . in [this] particular case exceeds five percent of the entire amount of the payment or the amount actually collected’ ” … . People v Webber, 2022 NY Slip Op 01904, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Before the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% can be imposed, an affidavit must be filed demonstrating the actual cost of collection.

 

, ,

WHERE AN ORDER CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this post-judgment matrimonial case, determined the decision controls the discrepancy between the order and the decision:

… [B]oth parties expressly agreed in the oral stipulation that plaintiff’s benefits would be distributed “[i]n accordance with the Majauskas formula.” That oral stipulation was an unambiguous expression of the parties’ intent to follow Majauskas, …

… [T]he amended order conflicts with the court’s written decision insofar as the … amended order purports to award defendant 23.86% of a former spouse survivor annuity under 5 USC § 8341 (h) (1). The stated percentage represents defendant’s share of plaintiff’s gross monthly annuity, as calculated by the court pursuant to the Majauskas formula, but the court in its decision made no award to defendant of a former spouse survivor annuity, which, had it been awarded, would have expressly conflicted with the parties’ agreement. Where, as here, there is a conflict between the decision and the order, the decision controls, and we therefore modify the amended order accordingly … . Reukauf v Kraft, 2022 NY Slip Op 01898, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: If there is a conflict between an order and a decision, the decision controls.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED TO PAY $10,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not follow the procedural requirements for imposing sanctions, i.e.,  $10,000 in attorney’s fees to defendant’s counsel, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel:

The motion court’s sua sponte award of sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel did not satisfy the procedural requirements of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Court (22 NYCRR) § 130-1. That section provides that a court may award costs or impose sanctions “upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … and “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . DeSouza v Manhattan RX LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01875, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Before a judge can impose sanctions, here ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay counsel fees in the amount of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney, the relevant rules in 22 NYCRR 130-1 must be complied with, i.e., affording an opportunity to be heard and issuing a written decision explaining the conduct, why it was found frivolous and the reasons for the amount awarded or imposed.

 

, ,

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.

 

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