You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

“Outing” Confidential Informant Online Constituted Witness Tampering

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for fourth-degree witness tampering.  Defendant was present when a confidential informant purchased drugs from defendant's companion.  The transaction was videotaped.  Defendant put the surveillance tape online and identified the confidential informant on his Facebook page.  Statements on the Facebook page by the defendant and others included warnings such as “Snitches get stiches:”

The evidence, seen in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to establish that defendant knew that the confidential informant might testify in a proceeding, and that he wrongfully sought to stop her from doing so. After learning about Jackson's arrest and the confidential informant's role as a witness against Jackson and, potentially, himself, defendant immediately posted communications on the internet that the jury might have reasonably inferred were coded threats that were intended to induce the confidential informant not to testify. And in addition to the public postings on Facebook and YouTube, defendant was in contact via Facebook messages (which essentially act as email on the website) with the confidential informant and her mother. People v Horton, 2014 NY Slip Op 07088, Ct.App. 07088, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute

The Court of Appeals, over a concurring opinion which disagreed with the majority's grounds, determined that the four-month statute of limitations was not tolled under a “continuing harm” theory and the prohibition action was time-barred.  The trial court had declared a mistrial because, during deliberations, one of the 12 jurors was removed for misconduct.  It was clear shortly after the mistrial that the prosecution was preparing for a second trial. Two years after the mistrial was declared, the defendant brought a prohibition action seeking to prohibit the second trial on Double Jeopardy grounds:

A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings (see CPLR 217 [1]…) and the petition here was filed more than two years after the mistrial was declared. Although a tolling period for continuing harm has been recognized … and would be adopted by our concurring colleague, we reject its application in this situation. Once the People definitively demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case for eventual trial, Smith was obligated to initiate his Double Jeopardy-based article 78 challenge within the statutorily prescribed time frame. On the facts of this case, that period expired well before prohibition was sought, and therefore, the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2014 NY Slip OP 07090, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined there were questions of fact about whether the applicable regulations and codes required that there be a railing around an air shaft, and whether it was foreseeable that plaintiff would gain access to the flat roof through a window and fall into the shaft.  The opinion includes a detailed description of the relevant building regulations.  With respect to foreseeability, the court wrote:

It is well settled that, as landowners, defendants have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances” … . The existence and scope of this duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for the courts to determine by analyzing the relationship of the parties, whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm, and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks … .

The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is whether it was foreseeable that defendants' tenants and their guests would access the setback roof and be exposed to a dangerous condition from the absence of a railing or guard around the air shaft. * * *

…[H]ere, the setback roof was flat and of sufficient size and length to comfortably permit several individuals to stand or walk on it. Access to the roof was easily obtained through the hallway window, and neither plaintiff nor his friends had any difficulty exiting. … Here, the tenant of the apartment that plaintiff was visiting testified that he had stepped onto the roof through the window approximately 15 times in the two months preceding the accident to smoke cigarettes and that the previous tenant had often done the same. According to the resident, evidence of this use was visible because cigarette butts and garbage littered the roof. On this record …reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff's use of the roof and his resulting fall were foreseeable, thereby precluding the grant of summary judgment to defendants on that ground. Powers v 32 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07084, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

County Can Charge Towns the Amounts Paid by the County On Behalf of Community College Students Residing in the Towns, Even Though the State, by Statute, Undertook the Responsibility to Reimburse the Counties for those Expenses—One Statute Does Not Impliedly Repeal Another Unless It Is Impossible to Give Effect to Both

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the amounts paid by a county for its residents' attendance at an out-of-county community college can be charged to the towns within the county where the students reside. The court further held that the amounts owed by the towns to the county could be taken by the county from a town's share of county sales tax revenue.  The county was authorized to charge the towns, even though the state, by statute, had taken on the responsibility for reimbursing the counties.  The state's obligation in that regard had not been funded for years. The state's failure to fund its obligation, however, did not negate the statute which allowed the county to charge the towns:

According to the financing system established by the Education Law, funding for community colleges is derived from the State, the local sponsor and the individual students (see Education Law §§ 6304 [1][a], [1][c], [1][d]). The local sponsor's portion of the financial burden depends upon where its students reside. For “resident” students — generally those who reside within the particular geographic region served by the local sponsor — the local sponsor is responsible for a portion of the community college's operating and capital costs (see Education Law §§ 6301 [5]; 6304 [1]). For nonresident students — those who live within New York State, but outside of the region where the community college is located — the local sponsor is permitted to charge back a portion of those operating costs to the students' county of residence (see Education Law § 6305 [2]). The county, in turn, is authorized to “charge back such amounts in whole or in part to the cities and towns in the county” where such nonresident students reside (Education Law § 6305 [5]). * * *

It is true that the State's reimbursement obligation is phrased in mandatory terms (see Education Law § 6305 [10]). However, there is nothing in the statute that expressly repeals the County's ability to seek chargebacks from the towns. Nor is there any indication that the legislature intended to impliedly repeal section 6305 (5). “Generally, a statute is deemed impliedly repealed by another statute only if the two are in such conflict that it is impossible to give some effect to both. If a reasonable field of operation can be found for each statute, that construction should be adopted” … . Here, the statutes are not in irreconcilable conflict, but can be harmonized. The community college funding scheme is clearly intended to provide the counties with reimbursement. That goal can either be accomplished using funds from the State (if available) or, in the alternative, from the local municipalities. The effect of the State's failure to fund its reimbursement obligation is not the imposition of an additional expense upon the counties — especially where the statute continues to authorize chargebacks to the towns and cities for all community colleges. In other words, the State's nonperformance does not change the rights and obligations as between the County and the Town. Rather, the State's reimbursement obligation was superseded when the legislature failed, in the course of the budgeting process, to appropriate the required funding … . The County was then free to look to the Town for reimbursement under Education Law § 6305 (5). Matter of Town of N Hempstead v County of Nassau, 2014 NY Slip Op 07009, CtApp 10-16-14

 

, ,

Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent “Use Variance” Criteria, Properly Applied to a Restaurant’s Request for a Variance Re: Off-Street Parking Requirements

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined when “area variance,” as opposed to “use variance,” criteria should be applied to off-street parking requirements.  The zoning board had allowed a variance from the off-street parking requirements for a restaurant under the less stringent “area variance” standard.  The petitioner, a neighboring property owner, sought a declaration that the more stringent “use variance” criteria should be applied.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the petitioner and affirmed:

…[A]s of July 1, 1994, General City Law § 81-b (1) has defined a “use variance” as an authorization for the use of land for a purpose “otherwise not allowed or . . . prohibited” in the zoning district; and an “area variance” as an authorization to use land “in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements” of the zoning regulations (see also Town Law § 267 [1]; Village Law § 7-712 [1]). Off-street parking requirements, while differing depending on use, regulate how the property's area may be developed, akin to minimum lot size or set-back restrictions. Accordingly, area variance rules apply to requests to relax off-street parking requirements so long as the underlying use is permitted in the zoning district; use variance rules prevail only if the variance is sought in connection with a use prohibited or otherwise not allowed in the district (see generally, Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 267-b at 294-295).

In this case, [the restaurant] applied for an off-street parking variance in connection with a change in the storefront's use from a retail gift shop to a restaurant. Because both uses are permitted in the zoning district, the ZBA properly considered the application as a request for an area variance. Matter of Colin Realty Co LLC v Town of N Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 07008, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.  The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand.  After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon.  The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:

Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court

The Court of Appeals determined that the speedy trial clock started running when the People's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.  The time attributable to the lower court's adjournment while the application to the Court of Appeals was pending should not have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

The parties do not dispute that under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) a new criminal action commenced when a Judge of this Court denied the People leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order. The People point to the fact that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, “[i]n computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial . . . a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: . . . appeals; . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” must be excluded (CPL 30.30 [4] [a] [emphasis added]).

The People contend therefore that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 is excludable, relying on People v Vukel (263 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 830 [1999]), which held that when a trial court orders an adjournment for control purposes because of the pendency of a defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court, the entire period of the adjournment is excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a), as time resulting from the appeal. In Vukel, the Appellate Division rejected the argument that the People have “an obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving the certificate denying leave” (id. at 417).

The mere lapse of time, following the date on which the order occasioning a retrial becomes final, does not in itself constitute a reasonable period of delay resulting from an appeal within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). Otherwise, the People would be permitted to delay retrial for the duration of an adjournment in the trial court, no matter how lengthy, even after a Judge of our Court has denied leave to appeal, without consequence under CPL 30.30. Such a rule would be inconsistent with “the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … . To the extent Vukel holds otherwise, it should not be followed. People v Wells, 2014 NY Slip Op 07012, CtApp 10-16-14

 

Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender As Long As the Offender Has Not Been Convicted of Any of the Serious Offenses Enumerated in Correction Law 803

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolved a conflict among the appellate division departments about the applicability of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) to persistent felony offenders.  The court determined that the resentencing allowed by the DLRA for certain drug-related offenses is available to persistent felony offenders who have not been convicted of any of the serious crimes enumerated in Correction Law 803:

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see L 2009, ch 56, § 1, hereinafter “2009 DLRA”) provides remedial resentencing to low-level non-violent felony drug offenders who meet various basic eligibility requirements (see CPL 440.46 [1]). The 2009 DLRA, however, denies resentencing to any offender who is serving a sentence for an “exclusion offense,” which is, among other things, an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available pursuant to [Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii)]” (CPL 440.46 [5]; CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii]). Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), in turn, makes a merit time allowance unavailable to an offender who is serving a sentence imposed for any of the violent or sexual crimes specifically enumerated in that statute, without regard to the offender's predicate sentencing status (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]). That statute also prevents any offender serving a sentence “authorized for an A-I felony offense” from receiving a merit time allowance (id.), thereby denying such an allowance to anyone who has been sentenced as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [2] [a]; 70.02 [3] [a] [i]; 70.10 [2]).

In interpreting the language of these interlocking statutes, the Departments of the Appellate Division are divided over the proper answer to the following question: does the DLRA resentencing exclusion apply to all offenders who are ineligible to receive a merit time allowance, including those who cannot receive those allowances solely by virtue of their recidivist sentencing adjudications; or, to the contrary, does it apply only to offenders who have been convicted of certain serious crimes that are specifically listed in Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii) and eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance regardless of an offender's recidivist sentencing adjudication? We hold that the exclusion applies only to offenders who have been convicted of one or more of the serious crimes that automatically render merit time allowances unavailable under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), and that therefore an offender who has no such conviction may be resentenced, notwithstanding his or her adjudication as a persistent felony offender. People v Coleman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07010, CtApp 10-16-2014

 

,

Search of Home for Weapon Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversed the appellate division, finding that exigent circumstances did not justify the search for and seizure of weapon after the suspects and all members of the household were in one room of the home under police supervision.  The police responded to gunfire, saw one of the suspects with a firearm, and used force to gain entry to the apartment into which the suspects fled:

“[S]ubject only to carefully drawn and narrow exceptions, a warrantless search of an individual's home is per se unreasonable and hence unconstitutional” … . One exception, commonly referred to as the “exigent circumstances” exception, dictates that police may act without a warrant where they possess probable cause to search but “urgent events make it impossible to obtain a warrant in sufficient time to preserve evidence or contraband threatened with removal or destruction” … . Even in such cases, however, “the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it arises” … . The People have the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search … .

In this instance, the People failed to meet that burden. There is no record support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the search of the closed box. The search was unreasonable as a matter of law because, by the time Officer Brennan opened the box, any urgency justifying the warrantless search had abated. The officers had handcuffed the men and removed them to the living room where they (and the two women) remained under police supervision. At the time Officer Brennan searched the box and discovered the gun, the police “were in complete control of the house” and “[a]ll occupants were out of commission” … . At that point, contrary to the People's contention, there was no danger that defendant would dispose of or destroy the weapon …nor was there any danger to the public or the police … .  Absent the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement, such as a search incident to arrest or the gun being in plain view … the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to searching the box. People v Jenkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07007, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Unearned Hourly Fees and Contingency Fees Are Not the Property of a Dissolved Law Partnership

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that unearned hourly fees and contingency fees are not the property of a dissolved law firm such that a bankruptcy trustee can reach them on behalf of creditors:

In New York, clients have always enjoyed the “unqualified right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time” without any obligation other than to compensate the attorney for “the fair and reasonable value of the completed services” … . In short, no law firm has a property interest in future hourly legal fees because they are “too contingent in nature and speculative to create a present or future property interest” …, given the client's unfettered right to hire and fire counsel. Because client matters are not partnership property, the trustees' reliance on Partnership Law § 4 (4) is misplaced.

… New York courts have never suggested that a law firm owns anything with respect to a client matter other than yet-unpaid compensation for legal services already provided. Appellate Division decisions dealing with unfinished business claims in the context of contingency fee arrangements uniformly conclude that the dissolved partnership is entitled only to the “value” of its services… . Matter of In re: Thelen LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 04879, CtApp 7-1-14

 

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