You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

“Home or Business Exception” to Criminal Possession of a Weapon Does Not Apply to Defendant Previously Convicted of a Crime

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the “home or business exception” to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree did not apply when the defendant has been previously been convicted of any crime:

…[T]his appeal requires us to interpret the “home or business” exception to the third-degree weapon possession statute, Penal Law § 265.03 (3).  Under that statute:

“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when:” (3) such person possesses any loaded firearm.  Such possession shall not, except as provided in subdivision one . . . of section 265.02 of this article, constitute a violation of this subdivision if such possession takes place in such person’s home or place of business.”

Section 265.02 (1), to which the above quoted language refers, defines criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.  Under Penal Law § 265.02 (1), a person is guilty of third degree criminal possession when he or she “commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree . . . and has been previously convicted of any crime.”  The Appellate Division read the reference in section 265.03 (3) to section 265.02 (1) as creating an exception to the home or business exception — i.e., to make that exception inapplicable when the defendant has a previous criminal conviction.  We agree with this reading of the statute.  People v Jones, 185, CtApp 11-19-13

 

, ,

Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, in spite of his counsel’s failure to inform him his guilty plea would result in deportation. The court determined that, under the specific facts of the case, there was no “reasonable probability” defendant would not have entered a guilty plea had he been informed of the mandatory deportation:

Under the State and Federal Constitutions, a defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel (see US Const, 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6…).  Under the Federal Constitution, defense counsel is ineffective when his or her performance “f[a]ll[s] below an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms” (Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]).  Even if counsel’s performance is deficient, however, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (id. at 694-695).  In the plea context, the defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … .  Whether the defendant can show such a “reasonable probability” will often turn, as it does here, on credibility determinations which, if they have support in the record, we cannot review… . * * *

…[W]e conclude that there is support for the lower courts’ determination that defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, if counsel had informed him that he was certain to be deported as a result of his guilty plea, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial… .  People v Hernandez, 211, CtApp 11-19-13

 

, ,

Court’s Failure to Inform Defendant that Guilty Plea May Result in Deportation Violates Due Process/Vacation of Plea in Absence of Notification Not Automatic

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (with concurring and dissenting opinions), the Court of Appeals determined that all non-citizen defendants who plead guilty to a felony are entitled, under the Due Process clause, to notification that the plea may result in deportation, but that a failure to so notify does not automatically require vacation of the plea:

We … hold that due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony.   In reaching this conclusion, we overrule the limited portion of our decision in People v Ford (86 NY2d 397 [1995]) which held that a court’s failure to advise a defendant of potential deportation never affects the validity of the defendant’s plea.

[We] further hold that, in light of the Court’s conclusion that a trial court must notify a pleading non-citizen defendant of the possibility of deportation, the trial court’s failure to provide such advice does not entitle the defendant to automatic withdrawal or vacatur of the plea.  Rather, to overturn his or her conviction, the defendant must establish the existence of a reasonable probability that, had the court warned the defendant of the possibility of deportation, he or she would have rejected the plea and opted to go to trial… .  People v Peque, et seq, 163, 164, 165, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

Criteria Not Met for “Special Facts” Exception to Rule that the Zoning Law in Effect at the Time a Site Plan Application is Decided Is Controlling

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined that the zoning law in effect at the time the applicant’s (Rocky Point’s) site plan application was decided, as opposed to the zoning law in effect when the application was first submitted, controlled. The criteria for the “special facts” exception to the general rule (general rule = applying the law at the time the application was decided) was not met. The court explained:

In land use cases, the law in effect when the application is decided applies, regardless of any intervening amendments to the zoning law … . Rocky Point seeks to avoid this rule and have the zoning law in effect at the time it submitted its application apply to its request, arguing it falls within the “special facts” exception to the general time of decision rule.Under the special facts exception, where the land owner establishes that they are entitled as a matter of right to the underlying land use application—here, a “site plan”–the application is determined under the zoning law in effect at the time the application is submitted …. In order for a land owner to establish entitlement to the request as a matter of right, the land owner must be in “full compliance with the requirements at the time of the application,” such that “proper action upon the permit would have given [the land owner] time to acquire a vested right” … . In addition to showing entitlement to the request as a matter of right, the land owner must also show “extensive delay indicative of bad faith,” …, “unjustifiable actions” by the municipal officials, …, or “abuse of administrative procedures” ….As the record establishes, Rocky Point fails to meet the threshold requirement that it was entitled to the requested land use permit under the law as it existed when it filed its application. Rocky Point Drive-In LP v Town of Brookhaven, 197, CtApp 11-14-13

 

,

Pre-Closing Documents Can Not Be Used to Prove Conveyance or the Issuance of Title Insurance

The Court of Appeals determined that a third-party purchaser of mortgages in the secondary mortgage market could not “rely on pre-closing documents to establish that a proper conveyance and recording of the underlying property occurred or that title insurance for the property was issued.”  DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc v Kontogiannis…, 253 SSM 29, CtApp 11-14-13

 

, ,

Lease; Services Agreement Did Not Allow Building Owner to Recover for Condition of Property

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiffs, the building owners, could not recover damages related to the condition of the property upon the termination of the lease.  The property was used as a homeless shelter.  The City of New York entered into a Services Agreement with The Salvation Army to run the shelter.  The Salvation Army leased the property from the property owners. The City, in the Services Agreement, was required to pay The Salvation Army’s obligations to the property owners under the lease. The Court wrote:

The Lease is clear that, as a general proposition, The Salvation Army is not obliged to pay more to plaintiffs than it can recover from the City, and it is equally clear that The Salvation Army must do what it reasonably can to recover what the City owes it.  If The Salvation Army breached its duty to use commercially reasonable efforts to enforce a City obligation, it could not rely on the City’s non-payment of that obligation to defeat plaintiffs’ claim.  …[H]owever, … the complaint fails to allege any commercially reasonable step that The Salvation Army should have taken to recover money from the City. Plaintiffs do not identify any provision of the Services Agreement under which the City owes money to The Salvation Army that The Salvation Army failed to collect.  JFK Holding Company LLC v City of New York…, 196, CtApp 11-14-13

 

,

German Museum Proved It Had Superior Title to Ancient Assyrian Gold Tablet in Decedent’s Estate/Doctrine of Laches Did Not Apply

In an estate proceeding, the Court of Appeals determined the doctrine of laches did not apply and the German Museum was entitled to the return of the Assyrian gold tablet, which was in decedent’s estate but had been missing from the museum since World War II:

We agree with the Appellate Division that the Estate failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches, which requires a showing “that the museum failed to exercise reasonable diligence to locate the tablet and that such failure prejudiced the [E]state” …. .  While the Museum could have taken steps to locate the tablet, such as reporting it to the authorities or listing it on a stolen art registry, the Museum explained that it did not do so for many other missing items, as it would have been difficult to report each individual object that was missing after the war. Furthermore, the Estate provided no proof to support its claim that, had the Museum taken such steps, the Museum would have discovered, prior to the decedent’s death, that he was in possession of the tablet … .  As we observed …in a related discussion of the defense of statute of limitations, “[t]o place a burden of locating stolen artwork on the true owner and to foreclose the rights of that owner to recover its property if the burden is not met would . . . encourage illicit trafficking in stolen art” … .

Additionally, the Estate failed to demonstrate “the essential element of laches, namely prejudice” … .  While the Estate argued that it had suffered prejudice due to the Museum’s inaction, there is evidence that at least one family member (decedent’s son) was aware that the tablet belonged to the Museum.  And, although the decedent’s testimony may have shed light on how he came into possession of the tablet, we can perceive of no scenario whereby the decedent could have shown that he held title to this antiquity. Matter of Flamenbaum, 178, CtApp 11-14-13

 

,

Harmless Error Rule Should Not Have Been Applied to Guilty Plea

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals, over a dissent, declined to apply the harmless error rule to a guilty plea.  In this driving-while-intoxicated case, the defendant moved to suppress an open bottle of rum and a crack pipe which were found in the car he was driving during an inventory search. The motion was denied. Defendant told the court he wanted to plead guilty because he “was not planning to go to trial if [he] got a negative ruling” on the motion.  On appeal, the inventory search was deemed invalid, but the Appellate Division ruled the error “harmless.”  In reversing, the Court of Appeals wrote:

The harmless error rule was “formulated to review trial verdicts” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378).  It requires an appellate court to assess the quantum and nature of the People’s proof of guilt independent of erroneously admitted evidence and the causal effect, if any, that the introduction of that evidence had on the fact finder’s verdict … .  Harmless error therefore can be “difficult to apply to guilty pleas” — especially in cases involving “an improper denial of a pretrial motion to suppress” — since “a defendant’s decision to plead guilty may be based on any factor inside or outside the record” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378379).  Consequently, convictions premised on invalid guilty pleas generally are not amenable to harmless error review (see id.).

The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and we have recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no “reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” (id. at 379).  Although a failure to suppress evidence may detrimentally influence a defendant’s plea negotiations, a concession of guilt may be treated as valid if the defendant articulates a reason for it that is independent of the incorrect pre-plea court ruling (see id. at 379-380) or an appellate court is satisfied that the decision to accept responsibility “was not influenced” by the error… . * * *

Certainly, there may be instances where the failure to grant suppression does not affect a defendant’s decision to plead guilty because the challenged proof is cumulative or too trivial.  In this case, however, the denial of the motion to suppress could not be viewed as harmless and the guilty plea must be vacated. People v Wells, 188, CtApp 11-14-13

 

In Deciding the Sequence of Convictions, the Original Sentence Date Controls, Not the Date of Resentencing to Cure a Post-Release-Supervision Flaw

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that, with respect to New York’s sentence enhancement statutes, “the controlling date of sentence for the defendant’s prior conviction is the original date of sentence for that conviction… [not] the date of a later resentencing which rectifies the flawed imposition of post-release supervision (PRS) in accordance with … People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]). … Therefore, at sentencing for a more recent crime, the defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a predicate felony conviction if the original date of sentence precedes the commission of the present offense.”  People v Boyer…, 205, 206, CtApp 11-14-13

 

Consecutive Sentences for Possession of Weapon and the Crime Committed Later with the Weapon Okay

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined “a sentence imposed for ‘simple’ knowing, unlawful possession of a loaded weapon (i.e., without any intent to use) was properly run consecutively to the sentence for another crime committed with the same weapon.  [The defendants in these cases] completed the crime of possession independently of their commission of the later crimes, and therefore consecutive sentencing was permissible.”  The court explained:

The mens rea for any crime “‘can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time'” … .  The mens rea for “simple” possession is knowing unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.  So long as a defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon, the possessory crime has already been completed, and consecutive sentencing is permissible.  People v Brown… 199, 200, 201, CtApp 11-14-13

 

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