You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

Plea to a Lesser Offense Need Not Be Supported by Facts Admitted in a Plea Allocution—Court’s Unnecessary Attempt to Have Defendant Admit to Facts in Support of All of the Elements of the Lesser Offense Required Vacation of the Plea

The Court of Appeals determined defendant's guilty plea was tainted by the court's and counsel's confusion about the allocution which was required.  The defendant was charged with rape by forcible compulsion (first degree) and pled guilty to a lesser rape offense–i.e., sexual intercourse with a person incapable of consent by reason of being mentally incapacitated.  The lower court and counsel, according to the court of appeals, were under the misimpression that the plea allocution must included factual allegations supporting every element of the lesser offense:

Where a defendant enters a negotiated plea to a lesser crime than one with which he is charged, no factual basis for the plea is required (People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]…). Indeed, under such circumstances defendants can even plead guilty to crimes that do not exist (People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150, 153 [1967]; [plea to attempt to commit a crime of which intent is not an element]).

It seems, however, that at the time of defendant's plea counsel and the court were unaware of the rule of Clairborne, and thought it necessary to find a basis in fact for the plea. The court led defendant through an allocution in which he admitted that he encountered the victim when she was “too drunk to really make a decision about whether she did or did not want to have sex”; that he knew that “she was mentally incapacitated apparently from drinking”; and that he “went ahead and had sexual intercourse with her anyway.” The allocution provided no support for the idea that the victim was mentally incapacitated as the Penal Law defines that term. * * *

We conclude that we must reverse and vacate the plea. Although the entire allocution was unnecessary, and although even if it were necessary we would not require that it prove every element of the crime charged …, we simply cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned … . People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04039, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Where There Is Evidence, Other than or in Addition to a Chemical Test, of a Blood Alcohol Content, the Jury Can Be Instructed that It May Base Its Verdict on Its Own Finding Re: Blood Alcohol Content

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction that a “blood alcohol content of less that .08 is prima facie evidence defendant was not intoxicated” on the basis of her expert's testimony that her blood alcohol content was below .08 at the time she was driving (her subsequent blood alcohol test result was .09).  However, the Court of Appeals explained the defendant could have requested a jury instruction which would allow the jury to find she was not intoxicated if the jury first made the finding her blood alcohol level was below .08:

Since the evidence of her BAC that defendant presented here was not determined by a chemical test but was contained in the opinion of a defense expert, that evidence did not have the “prima facie” effect specified by the statute and defendant was not entitled to the charge she sought.

…It should not be thought, however, that the BAC thresholds specified in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(A) must be entirely omitted from a jury charge in a common law DWI case or in a driving while ability impaired (DWAI) case brought under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) (“No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol”). It is obvious from Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 (2) and 1195 (2) that the Legislature has made judgments about the significance of certain statistical thresholds — i.e., that a BAC of .08% or more justifies an inference of intoxication; that a BAC below .08% justifies an inference of non-intoxication; that a BAC above .07% justifies an inference of impairment; and that a BAC equal to or less than .05% justifies an inference that the driver was neither intoxicated nor impaired in her ability to drive. There is no reason why juries should remain unaware of these legislative judgments.

Thus, in this case Town Court should, if it had been requested to do so, have charged the jury in words or substance: If you find that there was less than .08 of one percent by weight of alcohol in defendant's blood while she was operating the motor vehicle, you may, but are not required to, find that she was not in an intoxicated condition. Similarly, in a DWAI case where the defendant proffers evidence other than chemical tests of a BAC at or below .05%, it would be proper to charge: If you find that there was .05 of one percent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood while she was operating a motor vehicle, you may, but are not required to, find that her ability to operate the motor vehicle was not impaired by the consumption of alcohol. And the People are entitled to a corresponding charge when they rely on evidence other than chemical tests to show that a defendant's BAC was above .08% in a DWI case, or above .07% in a DWAI case.  People v Fratangelo, 2014 NY Slip Op 04041, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith in Negotiations Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Did Not State a Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the parties failure to come to an agreement did not give rise to a cause of action.  The negotiations, pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, had come to an impasse which, the Court of Appeals concluded, was not actionable:

It is true, as the concurring Justices in the Appellate Division pointed out, that courts normally give a generous reading to pleadings that are attacked as insufficient on their face. But it is not too much to ask that a pleading filed after more than a decade of back and forth between the parties contain some specific facts supporting the claim of bad faith — not just the bald conclusions, contradicted by the only relevant document referred to, that [defendant] insisted “on terms that conflicted with the Settlement Agreement” and “made a definite and final communication” of its intent to violate its obligations. IDT Corp v Tyco Group SARI, 2014 NY Slip Op 04044, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) properly ruled the town could not revoke its policy of providing vehicles for use by certain town employees pursuant to a provision of the Town Code. The town argued that it could unilaterally revoke the vehicle assignments because the provision which purported to allow the vehicle assignments was illegal (the dissent agreed).  The Court of Appeals held that the provision was not illegal and, therefore, any change in the vehicle assignment policy must be negotiated with the union:

…[T]he Town asks us to rule in its favor on the ground that a public employer does not violate section 209-a (1) (d) of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law} when it unilaterally discontinues a past practice with respect to a term and condition of employment that is illegal under local law. Whatever the merits of the Town's position, we do not reach and need not consider them because the relevant past practice was not, in fact, illegal under the local law. Accordingly, PERB reasonably applied its precedent to determine that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees who enjoyed this benefit before the Town adopted and implemented the 2008 fleet/vehicle policy, and PERB's determination was based on substantial evidence.  Matter of Town of Islip v New York State Pub Empl Relations Bd., 2014 NY Slip Op 04030, CtApp 6-5-14

 

, ,

City Employee Blocking Roadway to Facilitate Repairs Was Engaged in a Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function–Ordinary Rules of Negligence Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the appellate division, finding that a city employee was acting in a proprietary, not a governmental, capacity when he told the plaintiff she could proceed on a roadway that he was closing for repairs but did not warn her of the depression in the roadway which caused her to fall.  The question came down to whether the employee was performing a road repair (proprietary) or a traffic control (governmental) function.  Because the employee was deemed to be performing a proprietary function, the ordinary rules of negligence applied to the city:

We recently explained the framework that must be used when a negligence claim is asserted against a municipality in Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. (21 NY3d 420 [2013]). First, a court must decide “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” (id. at 425). If the municipality's actions fall on the proprietary side, “it is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties”… . A governmental entity undertakes a proprietary role when its “activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises” … . “In contrast, a municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers” (id. [internal question marks and citation omitted]). Generally, “the distinction is that the government will be subject to ordinary tort liability if it negligently provided services that traditionally have been supplied by the private sector” … . In deciding whether a function is proprietary or governmental, a court examines “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred . . . , not whether the agency involved is engaged generally in proprietary activity or is in control of the location in which the injury occurred” … .

Historically, the maintenance of roads and highways was performed by both private entities and local governments, with each subject to the ordinary rules of negligence… . Wittorf v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04037, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Prosecution by Misdemeanor Information Waived by Defense Counsel; Facts Alleged In Support of the Obstruction of Governmental Administration Charge Were Sufficient to Meet Requirements of a Misdemeanor Complaint

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant had waived his right to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor information and the misdemeanor complaint to which he pled guilty sufficiently alleged the obstruction of governmental administration.  Defense counsel's statement “so waived” was deemed adequate to waive prosecution by information.  The misdemeanor complaint alleged that defendant stood behind a police vehicle after slamming the trunk shut. Those allegations were deemed sufficient to allege defendant intended to prevent the officer from patrolling the area. The dissent argued those factual allegations were insufficient to inform defendant of the nature of the charge:

“A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” … . Under the CPL, a court must use one of two instruments to take jurisdiction over a defendant accused of a misdemeanor: a misdemeanor complaint or a misdemeanor information. A misdemeanor complaint authorizes jurisdiction over an accused, and can commence a criminal action and allow the state to jail the defendant for up to five days, but it cannot serve as a basis for prosecution, unless the defendant waives prosecution by information (see CPL 100.10 [4]; 120.20 [1]; [a]; 170.65 [1], [3]; 170.70…). Concomitantly, unless waived, a valid information is a jurisdictional requirement for a misdemeanor prosecution (see CPL 100.10 [4]…).

A misdemeanor information must set forth “nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” … . We have called this “the prima facie case requirement” (Kalin, 12 NY3d at 229). An information serves the same role in a misdemeanor prosecution as a grand jury indictment does in a felony case: it ensures that a legally sufficient case can be made against the defendant … . A misdemeanor complaint, in comparison, need only set forth facts that establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense … .

A defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive prosecution by misdemeanor information, as demonstrated by an affirmative act … . When the defendant waives prosecution by information, he or she declines the protection of the statute, and the accusatory instrument must only satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see CPL 170.65 [1], [3]…). People v Dumay, 2014 NY Slip Op 04038, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Accusatory Instrument, Arguing the Facts Alleged Did Not Constitute the Crime Charged, Preserved the Legal-Sufficiency Issue for Appeal, Despite the Absence of a Motion for a Trial Order of Dismissal on the Same Ground

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, with three judges dissenting, determined defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the facts alleged by the People did not constitute the crime charged, preserved the “legal sufficiency” issue for appeal, despite the absence of a motion for a trial order of dismissal on the same ground. The defendant was charged with trespass and resisting arrest. The defendant had permission to be on the property.  County court had dismissed the trespass conviction, but upheld the resisting arrest conviction.  The Court of Appeals determined the arresting officer, because of prior dealings with the defendant, did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was trespassing, therefore the resisting arrest charge could not stand either.  The bulk of the majority opinion, and both dissenting opinions, dealt with the preservation issue.  The majority took great pains to explain that this holding did not affect the two leading cases concerning the preservation requirements re: the insufficiency of trial evidence (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56):

As a general matter, a lawyer is not required, in order to preserve a point, to repeat an argument that the court has definitively rejected … . When a court rules, a litigant is entitled to take the court at its word. Contrary to what the dissent appears to suggest, a defendant is not required to repeat an argument whenever there is a new proceeding or a new judge.

It is true that a challenge to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument at arraignment is conceptually different from a challenge based on the proof at trial, and that often an issue decided in one proceeding will not be the same as the issue presented in another. But here the issue was the same. People v Finch, 2014 NY Slip Op 03424, CtApp 5-13-14

 

, ,

Complaint Pursuant to the “Whistleblower” Statute Need Not Identify the Particular Statute or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a complaint brought under the “whistleblower”  provision of the Labor Law (section 740) need not identify the particular statute or regulation alleged to have been violated by the employer:

Labor Law § 740 (2), commonly referred to as the “whistleblower statute,” provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee . . . discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation” that either “creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or . . . constitutes health care fraud” (Labor Law § 740 [2] [a]). The narrow issue on this appeal is whether a complaint asserting a claim under that provision must identify the specific “law, rule or regulation” allegedly violated by the employer. We conclude that there is no such requirement. * * *

To be sure, in order to recover under a Labor Law § 740 theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that an actual violation occurred, as opposed to merely establishing that the plaintiff possessed a reasonable belief that a violation occurred … . And, the violation must be of the kind that “creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety” … . However, for pleading purposes, the complaint need not specify the actual law, rule or regulation violated, although it must identify the particular activities, policies or practices in which the employer allegedly engaged, so that the complaint provides the employer with notice of the alleged complained-of conduct. Webb-Weber v Community Action for Human Servs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03428, CtApp 5-13-14

 

,

Aggravated Harassment Statute Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad/Criminal Impersonation Statute Encompasses Injury to Reputation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals found the aggravated harassment statute unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and determined the “injury” contemplated by the criminal impersonation (second degree) statute encompassed injury to reputation.  The defendant's father is a “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholar.  The defendant engaged in an email campaign in which he created emails which purported to be from other “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholars and which had the effect of promoting his father's positions.  The defendant was convicted of criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, identity theft, forgery and unauthorized use of a computer.  Ultimately the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for nine counts of criminal impersonation and the forgery counts.  With respect to harassment and criminal impersonation, the court wrote:

A person is guilty [of criminal impersonation in the second degree] when he or she “impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another” (Penal Law § 190.25).  * * *

…[W]e conclude that injury to reputation is within the “injury” contemplated by Penal Law § 190.25. Many people, particularly with a career in academia, as relevant to this case, value their reputations at least as much as their property,[FN2] and we believe the Legislature intended that the scope of the statute be broad enough [*7]to capture acts intended to cause injury to reputation.

Accordingly, a person may be found guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if he or she impersonates another with the intent to cause a tangible, pecuniary injury to another, or the intent to interfere with governmental operations … . In addition, a person who impersonates someone with the intent to harm the reputation of another may be found guilty of this crime.

Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a) provides that “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she . . . communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” We agree with defendant that this statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad … .

In People v Dietze (75 NY2d 47 [1989]), this Court struck down a similar harassment statute, former Penal Law § 240.25, which prohibited the use of abusive or obscene language with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person. We determined that the statute [*8]was unconstitutional under both the State and Federal Constitutions, noting that “any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence” (id. at 52).

The reasoning applied in Dietze applies equally to our analysis of Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The statute criminalizes, in broad strokes, any communication that has the intent to annoy. Like the harassment statute at issue in Dietze, “no fair reading” of this statute's “unqualified terms supports or even suggests the constitutionally necessary limitations on its scope” … . People v Golb, 2014 NY Slip Op 03426, CtApp 5-13-14

 

,

Courts Charged with Supervising Defendants Found Not Responsible by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect Have the Power To Impose a Condition Allowing the Office of Mental Health to Seek Judicial Approval for a Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation When the Defendant Does Not Comply with Release Conditions and Refuses to Be Examined Voluntarily

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that a court charged with supervising a defendant who has been found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect can include in “an order of conditions a provision allowing the [NYS] Office of Mental Health (OMH) to seek judicial approval of a mandatory psychiatric evaluation in a secure facility when a defendant found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect fails to comply with the conditions of his release and refuses to undergo voluntary examination.”  The appellate division had held that Criminal Procedure Law section 330.20 prohibited the inclusion of such a requirement in an order of conditions:

Section 330.20 mandates an order of conditions whenever a track-one defendant moves from secure to nonsecure confinement, or is no longer institutionalized (Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [11], [12]), and allows the court to fashion these orders in whatever way, in its judgment, most effectively protects the public while serving the defendant's interest in remaining in the least restrictive environment possible. “[T]he order of conditions is the vehicle by which the . . . court effectuates its continuing supervisory authority over” a defendant found not responsible for a crime by reason of mental disease or defect … . And while the Commissioner and the district attorney may appeal from an order of conditions, the defendant may not (see Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [21]). This insulates the supervising court from a defendant's attempt to argue that a condition, thought by the judge to be a necessary prophylactic measure, excessively restricts his freedom.

Accordingly, section 330.20 authorizes orders that, along with a prescribed treatment plan, include “any other condition which the court determines to be reasonably necessary or appropriate” (Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [1] [o] [emphases added]). * * *

The effective-evaluation provision enables OMH to evaluate a track-one defendant who does not comply with court-ordered conditions and refuses to be examined voluntarily. Track-one defendants are released into the community with the express understanding that they may endanger the public and themselves if their mental health declines. Indeed, reported cases illustrate the perils posed when such defendants do not follow the regime designed by mental-health professionals and imposed by courts to safeguard their stability and functioning in the community … . The dangers of noncompliance are exacerbated when a track-one defendant also refuses to submit to a psychiatric evaluation thereby denying vital information to the Commissioner, whom section 330.20 (12) makes responsible for ensuring compliance with orders of conditions issued with release orders. Matter of Allen B v Sprout, 2014 NY Slip Op 03427, CtApp 5-13-14

 

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