You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

Error to Preclude Witness for Sexual Offender in Article 10 Proceeding

In a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding to determine whether Enrique D, a sexual offender, suffered from a mental abnormality justifying civil confinement, the Court of Appeals determined the judge erred in refusing to allow a former girlfriend, Naomi N, to testify about whether Enrique ever tried to offend against her and whether Enrique respected her “boundaries:”

In the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court abused its discretion by precluding Naomi N. from testifying.  Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (g) provides that a respondent in an article 10 proceeding “may, as a matter of right, testify in his or her own behalf, call and examine other witnesses, and produce other evidence in his or her behalf.”  This provision manifestly does not limit a respondent to expert witnesses.  The pertinent question is whether a witness — expert or lay — has material and relevant evidence to offer on the issues to be resolved.

Here, Naomi N.’s rejected testimony was relevant to the State expert’s diagnosis of paraphilia NOS — non-consent.  The jury was asked to decide whether Enrique D. suffered a condition, disease, or defect that predisposed him to commit sex offenses, and whether that condition caused him serious difficulty in controlling his sex offending conduct.  With respect to the first prong, Naomi N.’s testimony would have called into question whether Enrique D. exhibited a longstanding fixation on nonconsenting women; as to the second, her testimony was relevant to show whether he experienced difficulty controlling his sexual behavior.  Matter of State of New York v Enrique D, 168, CtApp 10-22-13

 

,

Recklessness Demonstrated In Operation of Vehicle

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s convictions for reckless manslaughter and reckless assault after defendant’s car struck another car head on.  There was evidence defendant was deliberately speeding (134 mph) in an area he knew to include a sharp turn.  The court explained the difference between recklessness and criminal negligence in this context:

The mental states of recklessness and criminal negligence share many similarities.  Both require that there be a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death or injury will occur; that the defendant engage in some blameworthy conduct contributing to that risk; and that the defendant’s conduct amount to a “gross deviation” from how a reasonable person would act (compare Penal Law § 15.05 [3] [Recklessly] with Penal Law  § 15.05 [4] [Criminal Negligence]).  The only distinction between the two mental states is that recklessness requires that the defendant be “aware of” and “consciously disregard” the risk while criminal negligence is met when the defendant negligently fails to perceive the risk … .

In the context of automobile accidents involving speeding, we have held that the culpable risk-creating conduct necessary to support a finding of recklessness or criminal negligence generally requires “some additional affirmative act” aside from “driving faster than the posted speed limit” … .  Here, there was ample proof that defendant did more than merely drive faster than the legal limit — indeed, there was eyewitness testimony that he was traveling at more than double the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour.  Moreover, before the collision, defendant stopped his vehicle in the middle of the unlit road and revved the engine. He then hit the gas pedal and accelerated to an extremely high rate of speed before crossing the double line into oncoming traffic.  Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence showed that defendant used a public road as his personal drag strip to showcase the capabilities of his modified sports car.  Although the jury acquitted defendant of driving while ability impaired (by alcohol), there was evidence that he had been drinking and smoking marijuana that evening … .  The evidence therefore demonstrated that defendant engaged in conduct exhibiting “the kind of seriously blameworthy carelessness whose seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … .

Furthermore, the proof was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that defendant acted recklessly — by consciously disregarding the risk he created — as opposed to negligently failing to perceive that risk.  Defendant was familiar with the curve in the road …, having driven by there on a number of prior occasions, and he had been warned twice about speeding into that very section of the road. People v Asaro, 158, CtApp 10-22-13

 

,

Ineffective Assistance On Suppression Issues—Case Sent Back

The Court of Appeals, over two dissenters, determined defendant had not been provided with effective assistance counsel with respect to the motion to suppress and suppression hearing.  The court sent the matter back to properly consider the suppression issues, stating that if defendant prevailed on suppression the conviction should be vacated and the indictment dismissed:

In his written motion requesting a hearing, counsel misstated the facts relating to the arrest, indicating that defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle stop rather than a street encounter with police.  At the suppression hearing, the attorney did not marshal the facts for the court and made no legal argument.  This, coupled with his failure to make appropriate argument in his motion papers or to submit a posthearing memorandum, meant that the defense never supplied the hearing court with any legal rationale for granting suppression. Moreover, after the court issued a decision describing the sequence of events in a manner that differed significantly from the testimony of the police officer (the only witness at the hearing) and was adverse to the defense, defendant’s attorney made no motion to reargue or otherwise correct the court’s apparent factual error.  Counsel never ascertained whether the court decided the motion based on the hearing proof or a misunderstanding of the officer’s uncontradicted testimony.

And this is not a case where any of these errors can be explained as part of a strategic design (assuming one could be imagined), given that defense counsel asked to be relieved, informing the court that he was unable to provide competent representation to defendant.  Thus, although the attorney secured a hearing, his representation in relation to the application as a whole was deficient in so many respects — both before, during and after the proceeding — that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation at a critical stage of this prosecution.  People v Clermont, 166, CtApp 10-22-13

 

,

Physician Can Be Removed from Medicaid Program Irrespective of Action Taken by Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with two concurring judges, the Court of Appeals determined that the Office of Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) is authorized to remove a physician from New York’s Medicaid program based on a consent order between the physician and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC) regardless of whether BPMC chooses to suspend the physician:

In this litigation, Supreme Court annulled OMIG’s determination to terminate petitioner-physician’s participation in the Medicaid program on the basis of a BPMC consent order, and directed his reinstatement.  In the consent order, petitioner-physician pleaded no contest to charges of professional misconduct and agreed to 36 months’ probation.  Upon OMIG’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that it was arbitrary and capricious for the agency to bar petitioner-physician from treating Medicaid patients when BPMC permitted him to continue to practice; and that OMIG was required to conduct an independent investigation before excluding a physician from Medicaid on the basis of a BPMC consent order … .  We subsequently granted OMIG permission to appeal (19 NY3d 813 [2012]).

We disagree with the Appellate Division’s rationale, but affirm because OMIG’s determination was arbitrary and capricious for another reason.  Specifically, OMIG did not explain why the BPMC consent order in this case caused it to exercise its discretion pursuant to 18 NYCRR 515.7 (e) to exclude petitioner-physician from the Medicaid program. * * *

When resolving charges of professional misconduct with BPMC, physicians and their attorneys should be mindful that a settlement with BPMC does not bind OMIG, as petitioner-physician discovered in this case.  Matter of Koch, DO v Sheehan…, 153, CtApp 10-22-13

 

,

Accomplice Testimony Corroboration Insufficient Under Law Read to Jury

Even though the evidence of corroboration of accomplice testimony was sufficient under People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188 [2010], the Court of Appeals held it was not sufficient under the stricter criteria of People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233 [1980] which Reome overruled. Because the jury was read the Hudson criteria, that criteria applied and the evidence of corroboration was not sufficient to support conviction:

Under the Hudson standard, the corroborating evidence was insufficient.  The evidence that was “independent” of the accomplice testimony in the Hudson sense proved, at most, that defendant had driven a minivan that was the same color as a car that was used to commit some of the crimes charged.  This by itself did not tend “to connect the defendant with the commission” of the crimes (CPL 60.22 [1]).  People v Rodriguez, 169, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Emergency Doctrine Applied—Statements Made to Police and Overheard by Police Not Suppressible

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to suppress certain statements made by the defendant to the police and to a friend in the presence of the police under the emergency doctrine. [The concurring judge felt the emergency was over when defendant spoke to his friend and his prior request for counsel rendered those statements suppressible. The majority held that the conversation with the friend was not police interrogation because there was no police involvement and the conversation was not a ploy by the police to elicit information from the defendant.] When the police encountered the defendant his clothes had wet blood on them and blood was found in defendant’s vehicle. The emergency doctrine applied because the police were justified in questioning the defendant to determine if someone was injured and needed help:

As a general rule, a person who is in custody cannot be questioned without first receiving Miranda warnings or after the right to counsel attaches … .  There are exceptions to these principles, one of which is referred to as the “emergency doctrine” … . It recognizes that the Constitution “is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger” …, thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation … .  We have explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … .  People v Doll, 141, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Insufficient Evidence to Warrant Jury Charge on Intoxication Defense

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s rape conviction finding that defendant presented insufficient evidence to warrant a jury charge on the intoxication defense:

Although intoxication is not a defense to a criminal offense, a defendant may offer evidence of intoxication whenever relevant to negate an element of the charged crime (see Penal Law § 15.25).  An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant …, “there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to [an] element . . . on that basis” … .  In order to meet this “relatively low threshold,” defendant must present evidence “tending to corroborate his claim of intoxication, such as the number of drinks, the period of time between consumption and the event at issue, whether he consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, whether his drinks were high in alcoholic content, and the specific impact of the alcohol upon his behavior or mental state” … .

Here, the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to harbor a doubt concerning the element of intent on the basis of intoxication.  Defendant’s bare assertions concerning his intoxication were, by themselves, insufficient … .  Nor did his statement to police and the victim’s testimony that she smelled alcohol on his breath corroborate defendant’s claim.  While he may, indeed, have consumed alcohol prior to the events leading up to the crimes alleged, the evidence established that defendant’s conduct was purposeful.  He cut a hole in a screen to gain entry, instructed the victim to be quiet, threw a blanket over her head, and stole her cell phone so she could not call the police.  Given this evidence, the court correctly ruled an intoxication charge was not warranted. People v Beaty, 148, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Nonsignatory Could Not Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under Direct Benefit Estoppel Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversed the appellate division and determined a party who was not a signatory to an agreement which included an arbitration clause could not be compelled to arbitrate under the direct benefit estoppel doctrine.  In explaining the doctrine, the court wrote:

Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits” the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement … .

Where the benefits are merely “indirect,” a nonsignatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate a claim.  A benefit is indirect where the nonsignatory exploits the contractual relation of the parties, but not the agreement itself … .  Matter of Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc, 149, CtApp 10-17-13

 

, ,

Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (over a substantial partial dissent which dealt with defense counsel’s antagonistic behavior toward the judge and degrading comments about the defendant), the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge, who had represented the defendant in the past on an unrelated matter (about which the judge had no specific memory), properly denied defendant’s recusal request which alleged bias on the judge’s part:

Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law § 14, a judge’s decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion … .  “This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of nonjuridical data” … .  We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” … .  People v Glynn, 155, CtApp 10-17-13

 

, ,

School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Education

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division and found plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss:

Defendants are of course correct that evidence only that the principal made stray discriminatory comments without any basis for inferring a connection to the termination would be insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308 [comments made years before the plaintiff’s termination failed to raise a triable issue of fact in light of the clear evidence of plaintiff’s misconduct]).  But that is not the case here.  Plaintiff has offered evidence of, among other things: defendant principal’s repeated homophobic remarks directed at plaintiff; his decision to report to the Department of Education (DOE) allegations that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct while working at an after-school program that he did not supervise; his close relationship with the alleged victims of the misconduct; his independent decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment; and the after-school program supervisor’s opinion that plaintiff had not engaged in any misconduct worthy of reporting to the DOE. This is sufficient to deny defendants’ motion for summary dismissal.  Sandiford v City of New York Dept of Education, 157, CtApp 10-17-15

 

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