You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, , ,

DEFENDANT, BY FIRING HIS ATTORNEY AND REFUSING TO BE PRESENT AT TRIAL, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT HIS TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurrence and an extensive dissent, determined defendant, by firing his attorney and refusing to be present during the trial, waived his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to be present at his trial. The court further determined that the consecutive sentences for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon were improper because both offenses arose from the same act of possession:

“Waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary relinquishment of a known right” … . Like other fundamental rights, a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel may be waived … . We have explained that “[a]n accused awaiting trial . . . has only two choices regarding legal representation—proceed with counsel or waive the protection of the Sixth Amendment and proceed pro se” … . Accordingly, when a defendant “refuse[s] self-representation and restrict[s] the participation of counsel . . . [they] hav[e] voluntarily waived the right to the effective assistance of counsel” … .

Whether the waiver of a fundamental right is valid “depend[s], in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused” … . “In many instances, the requisite affirmative showing that . . . [a] right[ ] ha[s] been knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived will include a direct colloquy between the court and the defendant” … . We have also long held that a defendant may waive certain fundamental rights by their conduct, most notably in the context of the right to be present … . In determining whether such a waiver occurred, relevant circumstances include the warnings provided by the trial court, the defendant’s actions in response, and whether, in light of the defendant’s conduct, the trial court could practicably have administered additional warnings or attempted to secure an oral waiver. * * *

In light of the trial court’s many warnings to defendant and defendant’s obstructive behavior in response, there is record support for the conclusion that, by his conduct, defendant waived the right to effective assistance of counsel. A trial court must be cautious not to conflate waiver of the right to be present at trial with waiver of the right to effective assistance of counsel. These rights are separate, and a trial court has distinct duties to ensure the validity of a defendant’s waiver of each. However, in certain circumstances, as in this case, the same conduct may amount to a waiver of both rights. People v Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 01588, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: A defendant by his behavior (here firing his attorney and walking out of the trial), in the face of sufficient warnings by the judge, may waive both the right to effective assistance of counsel and the right to be present at the trial.

 

,

THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR POSSESSION OF DRUGS TO PROVE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS FOUND IN A SHARED APARTMENT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; THE PRIOR POSSESSION CONVICTION STEMMED FROM DRUGS FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, TWO YEARS BEFORE; THEREFORE THE PRIOR CRIME WAS NOT LOGICALLY CONNECTED TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE; THE EVIDENCE WAS ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED SOLELY TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S PROPENSITY TO POSSESS DRUGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the evidence of defendant’s prior possession of drugs found in his vehicle two years before was erroneously admitted to prove defendant’s constructive possession of drugs found in a shared apartment:

Generally, evidence of a defendant’s prior possession of drugs is inadmissible at trial to show their intent to sell drugs or knowing possession of drugs on another occasion … . This follows from our longstanding Molineux rule, which provides that “evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” … . When evidence of prior uncharged crimes or misconduct is logically connected to some specific material issue in the case—such as intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme or plan, or identity of the defendant—the evidence falls under an exception to the Molineux rule, and a court may admit the evidence if its probative value outweighs its potential for prejudice to the defendant … .

Here, because the People’s evidence of a prior incident involving defendant’s possession of drugs was not logically connected to any specific material issue in this drug possession case, apart from defendant’s propensity for possessing drugs, the trial court erred in admitting that evidence. Inasmuch as this error was not harmless, we reverse and remit for defendant to receive a new trial. * * *

The main issue at trial was whether defendant had constructive or knowing possession of the contraband distributed throughout three rooms in the apartment. We agree with the dissenting Justices below that defendant’s possession of cocaine in his car in 2017 was not relevant to that issue. The two incidents involved different locations, different circumstances, different theories of possession, and took place around two years apart. People v Henderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01627, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Here defendant’s conviction for possession of drugs found in his vehicle was admitted to prove he had constructive possession of drugs found in a shared apartment two years later. Because the prior crime evidence was not connected to any issue in the case on trial other than defendant’s propensity to possess drugs, it was reversible error to admit it.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY DID NOT SOUND HER AIR HORN BEFORE THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ VEHICLE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPUTY TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION; THEREFORE THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THE DEPUTY DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissent, determined the county was entitled to summary judgment in this negligence suit stemming from an intersection accident involving a sheriff’s deputy (Wong) who was responding to an emergency call. Although the court found that Wong did not sound her air horn prior to the collision with plaintiffs’ (Granaths’) car, the evidence demonstrated Wong did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others:

It is undisputed that, before proceeding through the intersection, Deputy Fong slowed down, came to a complete stop at least once, observed northbound traffic, waited for that traffic to yield to her, and turned on her overheard lights. The Granaths contend that a jury could nonetheless find that Deputy Fong exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others by failing to activate her air horn or siren; declining to call in a “Code 77” as required by MCSD [sheriff’s department] policy; and proceeding into the intersection despite having an obstructed view of southbound traffic.

We agree with the Appellate Division that defendants met their initial burden on their summary judgment motion and that, in opposition, the Granaths failed to raise a material triable issue of fact. Even assuming Deputy Fong failed to activate her air horn or siren, call in a “Code 77,” or observe southbound traffic—either because her view was obstructed or she neglected to look to her right—taken together with the actions she undisputably did take—slowing down, stopping, activating her emergency lights and proceeding only once she observed northbound traffic yield to her—we cannot conclude that Deputy Fong, with “conscious indifference to the outcome,” “reckless[ly] disregard[ed] . . . a highly probable risk of harm” … . Granath v Monroe County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01586, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the meaning of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” in the context of an intersection traffic accident involving a sheriff’s deputy responding to an emergency call.

 

, , ,

TWO PEOPLE WERE SHOT IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTIONS, DID NOT ADMIT TO FIRING SEPARATELY AT EACH VICTIM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE COMMISSION OF TWO DISTINCT CRIMES; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES COULD NOT BE IMPOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined the prosecutor did not demonstrate that the two victims of this drive-by shooting were struck by different bullets fired separately at each, causing separate injuries to each. Therefore the judge could not impose consecutive sentences. The court noted that this issue need be preserved for appeal:​

… [T]he prosecutor should have been aware at the time of the plea, based on our unambiguous caselaw, that they had the burden of ensuring defendant allocuted to sufficient facts to establish that he separately shot at the two victims or that the victims were injured by separate bullets, in order for consecutive sentencing to be legally authorized. But because the prosecutor failed to satisfy their burden and place on the record the alleged “separate and distinct” acts underlying the two crimes … , the trial court had no legal authority to impose consecutive sentences in this case. People v Sabb, 2026 NY Slip Op 01590, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Here the defendant was never asked during the plea allocutions whether he fired two shots separately injuring the two victims. Therefore the People did not meet their burden to prove the commission of two separate crimes and consecutive sentences could not be imposed.

 

, ,

THE ACT OF SIMPLE POSSESSSION OF A WEAPON WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE WEAPON WAS USED TO SHOOT THE VICTIM DURING A ROBBERY; THEREFORE, DESPITE THE OVERLAP OF THE ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND THE ELEMENTS OF FELONY MURDER AND ROBBERY, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE PROPERLY IMPOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the sentence for simple possession of a weapon was properly imposed to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences for felony murder and robbery:

Penal Law § 70.25 (2) governs consecutive sentencing, providing that “[w]hen more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other, the sentences . . . must run concurrently.” Otherwise, the decision to impose consecutive sentences is a matter of discretion; the statute provides that “when multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time . . . the sentence or sentences imposed by the court shall run either concurrently or consecutively . . . in such manner as the court directs at the time of sentence” … .

To determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a sentencing court must first examine the statutory elements of the crimes and determine whether those elements overlap “under either prong” of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) and, if they do, “the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the ‘acts or omissions’ committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . That is, where sufficient evidence of separate and distinct acts is presented by the People, “consecutive sentences are possible regardless of whether the statutory elements of the offenses overlap” … .

… [T]he convictions at issue here have overlapping material elements. * * * Whatever the overlap, however, we conclude that the People met their burden of establishing that the defendant’s acts here were separate and distinct and therefore the consecutive sentences imposed were legal.

The People demonstrated that defendant’s possession of the gun in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3) was an act distinct from the commission of the robbery. Defendant obtained the gun, at minimum, more than one hour before the robbery, carried it across approximately 15 city blocks, and placed it under a bed in a co-conspirator’s home for “a little while” before eventually retrieving the gun and walking over to the intended victim’s building. Evidence that defendant obtained the gun and then used it to commit the substantive crime provided a sufficient basis for the sentencing judge to impose consecutive sentences. … ” ‘[t]he evidence clearly established that defendant was carrying the weapon at the time he encountered and shot the victim,’ ” and therefore ” ‘the act of possession was complete before the shooting, and consecutive sentences were authorized by’ ” the statute … . People v Billups, 2026 NY Slip Op 01589, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a judge may impose consecutive sentences despite an overlap of the elements of the crimes.

 

,

HERE A “CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY” WAS NEVER FILED FOR ANY VIOLATION OF PROBATION BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED WHILE DEFENDANT WAS STILL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT; WHEN DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF PROBATION AGAIN, PROBATION WAS REVOKED AND DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION; BECAUSE THE REVOCATION AND SENTENCE TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED, THE SENTENCING COURT HAD BEEN STRIPPED OF JURISDICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, because no “declaration of delinquency” had ever been filed, defendant’s [Mr. Curry’s] period of probation was never tolled. Therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his probation and sentence him to incarceration after his probationary period expired:

From 2019 through 2021, Mr. Curry participated in the drug treatment program with mixed results. The DTC [drug treatment court] made efforts to support a positive outcome, permitting Mr. Curry’s continued release after positive drug screens and ensuring he received outpatient treatment. July 5, 2021—the date at which Mr. Curry’s probation was set to expire—passed while Mr. Curry continued to participate in DTC. On December 14, 2021, due to another positive drug screen and missed court dates, the DTC revoked Mr. Curry’s probation and sentenced him to two years of incarceration and three years of post-release supervision. People v Curry, 2026 NY Slip Op 01448, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: If a defendant violates probation but no certificate of delinquency is filed, the probationary period continues to run is not tolled. Here, despite probation violations by the defendant, no certificate of delinquency was ever filed. The court therefore did not have jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation and sentence him to incarceration after the expiration of his probationary period.​

 

,

THE STREET STOP OF DEFENDANT WAS INVALID UNDER BOTH THE US SUPREME COURT’S “HILL VS CALIFORNIA” “MISTAKEN ARREST” CRITERIA AND THE NYS “DEBOUR” STREET STOP CRITERIA; THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT AS HE FLED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined the parole investigators did not have “reasonable suspicion” that the defendant was in fact the parole absconder for whom they had a warrant when they pulled along side the defendant on the street in an unmarked car. The parole investigators wore civilian clothes. The defendant, who was not the parole absconder, ran and threw away a firearm. He ultimately pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a firearm. The defendant was wearing a ski mask so the investigators could not see his face when they pulled along side of him:

Supreme Court denied suppression, applying a rule for mistaken arrests derived from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hill v California (401 US 797 [1971]). The court credited the testimony of the investigator and his partner and held that the defendant’s physical similarities with the absconder, coupled with his “immediate” flight upon being approached, supported the officers’ reasonable belief that the defendant was the target of their warrant. * * *

The defendant and the People disagree about whether we should evaluate the investigators’ pursuit and arrest under De Bour or Hill. * * *

We need not decide which of the tests should control, because in this scenario we do not perceive a meaningful difference between Hill’s requirement of a reasonable mistaken belief and De Bour’s level three standard of reasonable suspicion. … Under Hill, the arresting officer must provide “reasonable, articulable grounds to believe that the suspect is the intended arrestee” … . By the same token, our De Bour caselaw specifies that reasonable suspicion requires an officer to point to “specific and articulable facts which, along with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted th[e] intrusion” … . Thus, when it comes to evaluating this particular scenario, the tests essentially ask the same question: whether the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s appearance and any additional observations about their behavior, justifies the resulting police-citizen encounter.  * * *

Nothing in the record here demonstrates that the defendant could have known that he was fleeing from law enforcement. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01447, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Here the US Supreme Court’s “mistaken arrest” criteria for a valid street stop and the NYS “Debour” criteria for a valid street stop required the same level of “reasonable suspicion.”

 

,

THE FOURTEEN-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the 14-month pre-indictment delay did not deprive defendant of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Defendant was incarcerated when he threw urine on a corrections officer. The court analyzed the facts under the “Taranovich” criteria (37 NY2d 442):

This Court analyzes due process claims predicated on a pre-indictment delay by weighing the five factors set forth in People v Taranovich: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . “The Taranovich framework is a holistic one—that is, ‘no one factor or combination of the factors . . . is necessarily decisive or determinative of the speedy trial claim'” … . People v Tyson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01446, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the Taranovich factors are applied to determine whether a pre-indictment delay violates the constitutional right to a s speedy trial.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD LEGITIMATE STRATEGIC REASONS FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO A REPUGNANT VERDICT, INCLUDING THE AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF RE-EXPOSING DEFENDANT TO AN ATTEMPTED SECOND-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined defendant did not demonstrate his attorney’s failure to object to a repugnant verdict constituted ineffective assistance:

Defendant has not demonstrated a lack of strategic or other legitimate explanation for his attorney’s failure to object to the jury verdict as repugnant (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Counsel could have declined to object to avoid the possibility that, to remedy the verdict’s repugnancy, the court might resubmit all charges to the jury, reexposing defendant to an attempted second-degree murder conviction (see CPL 310.50 [2]; People v Salemmo, 38 NY2d 357, 360-362 [1976]) That this additional conviction would not have increased defendant’s maximum sentencing exposure does not change this analysis. Sentencing exposure is not dispositive of the sentence a court ultimately imposes. Moreover, an additional felony conviction may have adverse collateral consequences and added societal stigma (see Ball v United States, 470 US 856, 865 [1985]; People v Greene, 41 NY3d 950, 951 [2024]), particularly a conviction for attempting to murder a police officer. People v Gaffney, 2026 NY Slip Op 01445, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when defense counsel’s failure to object to a repugnant verdict may be supported by legitimate strategic concerns—the avoidance of re-exposing defendant to charges of which he was acquitted, for example.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE WAS SUFFICIENT AND EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DEFENSE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirmed defendant’s conviction of reckless endangerment first degree for a series of deliberate collisions with vehicles which culminated in his deliberately crashing into an occupied house. The evidence of depraved indifference to human life was deemed sufficient and evidence of defendant’s bipolar disorder was deemed properly precluded because timely notice of the defense was not provided:

The People introduced testimony from multiple witnesses who observed defendant driving erratically, “weaving” between lanes in heavy traffic, eyes open, and with a “look of rage on his face.” Over approximately three-tenths of a mile, defendant struck three vehicles, drove through a parking lot, and ultimately crashed into a house. Defendant began this course of conduct by making a “sharp right” directly into a tow truck, causing defendant’s vehicle to “lock[]” onto a car being towed and to “hang[]” from the wheel lift of the truck. After defendant’s vehicle “shook loose” from the tow truck, defendant “sped up” and “proceeded to take off” and a short time later he crashed into the rear of a van with such force that the driver hit his head on the roof. The driver felt defendant’s vehicle “pushing” him down the road. Other witnesses provided a similar description of defendant, with his hands on the steering wheel, appearing to intentionally hit the van “again and again and again,” “pushing” it forward. Defendant next crashed into the back of a third vehicle, then side-swiped the driver’s side, causing the vehicle to “hit the curb” and to “flip[] over on its roof.” A fire hydrant pierced the roof of the car one foot from the driver’s head. Defendant “took off [] fast” from this crash, drove over a sidewalk, through a motel parking lot, and crashed directly into a house, causing it to shake upon impact. Two people were inside the house at the time and heard “screeching tires” as the car approached. Crash data from the vehicle’s air bag control module showed that the brakes were not applied in the eight seconds prior to impact with the house. From this course of conduct, and the multiple witnesses who testified about defendant’s actions and demeanor, a rational jury could have concluded that defendant was aware of the risks involved in his behavior and acted without regard for whether the drivers of those vehicles, any pedestrians who might have been in the parking lot, or the people inside the house, lived or died and that, in sum, defendant displayed depraved indifference to human life. People v Bender, 2026 NY Slip Op 01444, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the evidence required to support a jury’s conclusion that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life.

Practice Point: A defendant’s failure to give timely notice of a psychiatric defense may result in preclusion of the psychiatric evidence. Here evidence of defendant’s bipolar condition was precluded because the CPL 250.10 notice was untimely.

 

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