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.

 

,

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.

 

, ,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR CHARGES ASSESSED AGAINST AN EMPLOYER OR INSURANCE CARRIER FOR UNTIMELY COMPENSATION PAYMENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the Workers” Compensation Board (Board) did not have the authority to approve attorney’s fees for charges against an employer or insurance carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) section 25 for untimely compensation payments. The Board may only approve legal fees in accord with its counsel fees schedule in WCL section 24 which does not include charges under WCL section 25:

Counsel argues that the Board has long recognized that legal fees may be payable from late payment penalties, and that WCL 24 (2) … does not expressly limit the Board’s authority to approve such fees. Counsel further asserts that a claimant’s late payment award under WCL 25 is “compensation” under the WCL and thus falls within the WCL 24 (2) fee schedule. Counsel adds that permitting legal fees based on these charges furthers the WCL’s legislative purpose of promoting access to justice for injured workers by incentivizing attorneys skilled in handling WCL cases to represent claimants.

The Board counters that the plain text of WCL 24 (2) limits legal fee awards to those enumerated in the statute’s fee schedule. The Board further argues that charges assessed for late payments are not compensation but a separate award for a claimant assessed against an employer or insurance carrier. Lastly, the Board maintains that the amount of legal fees generated from an award listed on the fee schedule and the certainty that an attorney will receive those fees are sufficient incentives for attorneys to represent claimants.

We conclude that the Board does not have authority to approve legal fees based on charges assessed pursuant to WCL 25 because the text of WCL 24 (2) establishes a mandatory fee schedule that does not provide for such fees. Our interpretation does not lead to an absurd result. Indeed, the legislative history makes no mention of legal fees based on charges imposed for violations of WCL 25, let alone reflect a legislative concern that attorneys would refuse workers’ compensation cases if such fees were unavailable. Matter of Gonzalez v Northeast Parent & Child Socy., 2026 NY Slip Op 01443, CtApp 3-17-26

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED OUTSIDE THE HOME, HE WAS COERCED INTO TO LEAVING BY A SHOW OF FORCE BY THE POLICE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST VIOLATED PAYTON; WHETHER THE TENANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS VOLUNTARY WAS DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION USING THE WRONG CRITERIA; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined (1) the Fourth Department properly held that the warrantless arrest of the defendant outside the home violated Payton (445 US 573) and (2) the Fourth Department used the wrong criteria when it ruled the tenant’s consent to search the premises after defendant’s arrest was voluntary. The case was remitted to the Fourth Department for a ruling on the validity of the consent to search applying the correct criteria:

… Fifteen members of the Monroe County SWAT team and additional uniformed officers arrived at the apartment in an armored vehicle called a BearCat. The SWAT team members wore body armor and camouflage tactical clothing and carried assault rifles. The defendant did not live in the apartment but had been there for approximately 18 hours and stayed overnight the prior evening. An officer admitted that the police chose not to obtain an arrest warrant for the defendant because they wanted to interview him before his right to counsel attached.

A police investigator testified that upon seeing the defendant through the apartment window, he shouted at him to “come on out, house is surrounded . . . come out empty handed and come out with your hands up.” The defendant … exited the building, at which point he was taken into custody. Officers then entered the apartment and ordered the tenant and her cousin to “come out with [their] hands up” and lie face down with “guns to [them].” The tenant testified that she was scared; she and her cousin were handcuffed; and the police separated them and put the tenant into the back of a police patrol car, where she could not see her cousin and remained for approximately five to seven minutes. An officer obtained the tenant’s consent to search. * * *

When officers subject someone to a display of authority that induces them to exit the home under coercion, the sanctity of the home has been invaded to the same extent as if the officers had physically entered. Such a show of force violates Payton and renders an arrest unlawful … . * * *

… [T]he Appellate Division applied an incorrect legal standard in considering the validity of the tenant’s consent. People v Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, 128-130 [1976]) sets forth the factors that should be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary. Those include “whether the consenter is in custody or under arrest”; “the circumstances surrounding the custody or arrest,” including whether the person was “confronted by a large number of police agents”; whether the person was handcuffed; “the background of the consenter,” including their age and prior experience with police; “whether the consenter has been . . . evasive or uncooperative with the law enforcement authorities”; and “whether [the person] was advised of [their] right to refuse to consent” … .  The Appellate Division instead recited and applied the factors set forth in People v Borges (69 NY2d 1031, 1033 [1987]), which go to whether voluntary consent was attenuated from an illegal arrest, not whether the consent itself was voluntary. People v Shaw, 2026 NY Slip Op 00961, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: If a person is coerced by the police into leaving his home by a show of force, a warrantless arrest outside the home violates Payton and is illegal.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a consent to search obtained by the police can be considered voluntarily given.

 

, ,

THE COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT REVIEW AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE RULING ABSENT THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S MANIFEST FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OR THE APPLICATION OF AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD; NOT THE CASE HERE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the record did not support the appellant’s argument that the Appellate Division failed to consider the weight-of-the-evidence or did so using an incorrect legal principle. Therefore the Court of Appeals could not review the weight of the evidence:

On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment (220 AD3d 1223 [4th Dept 2023]). The Court held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, stating that, “[a]lthough a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,” the jury did not “fail[ ] to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” … . …

In Baque, we recently clarified the Appellate Division’s role in reviewing the weight of the evidence in a case involving purely circumstantial evidence. In a circumstantial evidence case, the jury must conclude that ” ‘the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence’ ” (Baque, 43 NY3d at 29 …). Observing that the Appellate Division’s function in conducting a weight review was to “independently assess all of the proof,” we explained that the Appellate Division, like the jury, must conclude that the evidence gives rise to such an inference … . We further reiterated in Baque that this Court has no power to review the Appellate Division’s decision regarding the weight of the evidence unless that Court ” ‘manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle’ ” … . * * *

Here, the Appellate Division expressly rejected defendant’s weight of the evidence challenge and did so by citing Bleakley and People v Danielson (9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007])—citations that we noted in Baque indicated that the Appellate Division applied the correct legal standard … .

… [W]e assume that the Appellate Division appropriately conducts its weight of the evidence review in a circumstantial evidence case, unless its decision manifestly demonstrates otherwise … . …

… [T]he Appellate Division cited …cases … indicating that the Appellate Division deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations and that it did not view this as an appropriate case in which to substitute its own credibility determinations for that of the jury … . …

In sum, Baque did not alter the longstanding principle that this Court “cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle” … . People v Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00967, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for the criteria for a Court-of-Appeals review of an Appellate Division’s weight-of-the-evidence ruling.

 

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