You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

Inventory Search Which Included Removal of Seat Panels and Speakers Okay

Over a substantial dissent by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, determined a vehicle search after a DWI arrest, in which an illegal weapon was found, was a valid inventory search.  The defendant had argued that the removal of seat panels that were askew and a speaker system demonstrated that the search was not a inventory search because the search was focused on finding contraband:

Following a lawful arrest of a driver of a vehicle that is required to be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. The search is “designed to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched” …. However, an inventory search must not be “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence” …. To guard against this danger, the search must be conducted pursuant to an established procedure “clearly limiting the conduct of individual officers that assures that the searches are carried out consistently and reasonably” …. “While incriminating evidence may be a consequence of an inventory search, it should not be its purpose” …. The People bear the burden of demonstrating the validity of the inventory search ….

Here the People proffered written guidelines, the officer’s testimony regarding his search of the vehicle, and the resulting list of items retained. Although defendant takes issue with the officer’s removal of the speakers by arguing that such action was a ruse designed to search for drugs, the officer’s testimony that it was police protocol to remove any owner-installed equipment, was accepted by the hearing court and we perceive no grounds upon which to overturn that determination. * * *

It was reasonable for the officer to check in the seat panels that were askew as part of his inventory. The fact that the officer knew that contraband is often hidden by criminals in the panels did not invalidate the entire search… .  People v Padilla, No 114, CtApp, 6-6-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, ,

Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant’s murder conviction should stand, even though he was questioned in violation of his right to counsel:

While in jail for a violation of probation (VOP), defendant was twice questioned by police about the victim’s disappearance, the second time after her body had been discovered. Counsel was not present. Defendant claims that his constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was represented by counsel on the VOP at the time, as evidenced by the notation made on an arraignment memorandum by the Town Justice who arraigned him on the VOP.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s indelible right to counsel was violated, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt…. There is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of the two challenged statements affected defendant’s conviction in view of the other evidence, including two counseled statements to police and testimony of numerous witnesses, that overwhelmingly established his guilt.  People v Augustine, No 109, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

,

Failure to Investigate Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In affirming the vacation of defendant’s conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.  The People’s case rested on the defendant’s statement.  The defense was based on the defendant’s mental weakness, which undermined the voluntariness of the statement.  Yet the defense attorney did not investigate critical documents relevant to the defendant’s mental condition. The Court of Appeals wrote:

The record reveals that trial counsel sought to build a defense based on defendant’s mental weakness undermining the voluntariness of his admissions of guilt. Despite the focus on defendant’s mental abilities, trial counsel chose to forgo any investigation of the critical documents concerning defendant’s mental condition, and instead, sought to present this defense through the testimony of defendant’s mother, an obviously biased witness. Regardless of whether the decision to present defendant’s condition through his mother’s testimony was a valid strategy, it was, as trial counsel admitted at the post-conviction hearing, a “strategy” “born in the blind.” One he admittedly pursued without benefit of the contents of defendant’s records.

This is not simply a case of a failed trial strategy …. Rather, this is a case of a lawyer’s failure to pursue the minimal investigation required under the circumstances. Given that the People’s case rested almost entirely on defendant’s inculpatory statements, trial counsel’s ability to undermine the voluntariness of those statements was crucial. The strategy to present defendant’s mental capacity and susceptibility to police interrogation could only be fully developed after counsel’s investigation of the facts and law, which required review of records that would reveal and explain defendant’s mental illness history, and defendant’s diagnosis supporting his receipt of federal SSI benefits. People v Oliveras, No 105, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined the trial court erred in ruling defense counsel could not argue to the jury that a witness should have been called by the People because defense counsel did not request a missing witness charge (the error was, however, deemed harmless).  The complainant’s statement did not mention an anal penetration which was the subject of trial evidence. When asked why the incident was not mentioned in the statement, the complainant said the police officer taking the statement told her no judge would believe that happened.  The officer did not testify.  The Court of Appeals wrote:

In his summation, defense counsel argued that this part of the complainant’s testimony was incredible. “We’ve changed as a society,” he argued. “No police officer is going to come up there and say, ‘Oh, no one is going to believe you, this was your boyfriend.’ That’s not where we are today.” That part of his argument drew no objection. But the prosecutor did object when counsel added: “And if that’s, in fact, what that police officer said, then where was he, where was that police officer on the stand to say: You know what, I didn’t write it down. I didn’t think she was telling me the truth. He didn’t testify to that.” The trial court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard counsel’s comment. Counsel tried again to make the missing witness argument, with the same result.

After summations, defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis of this ruling. The court denied the motion, saying that counsel should have asked for a missing witness instruction if he wanted to make a missing witness argument… .

The courts below clearly erred in holding that defense counsel’s missing witness argument was improper. The trial court’s theory, that a request for a missing witness instruction is a prerequisite to a missing witness argument is, as the Appellate Division recognized, flatly contrary to what we said in Williams (5 NY3d at 734). The Appellate Division affirmed on the alternative grounds that the officer’s testimony may have been cumulative and defendant failed to make an offer of proof. This approach may have been impermissible under People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470 [1998]) and People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192 [2011]).

Just before making the missing witness argument, counsel had attacked as incredible the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony as to what the officer said to her; confirmation of that testimony from the officer would not have been cumulative ….. And counsel had no obligation to make an offer of proof as a predicate for a missing witness argument. It is a premise of such an argument, as it is of a missing witness instruction, that the witness is in the control of the party that failed to call him … A party making such an argument, like one requesting such an instruction, “can hardly know what [the] witness knows or what the witness would say if called” … .  People v Thomas, No 108, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

,

Potential Versus Actual Conflict of Interest

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction, rejecting the defendant’s argument he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s conflict of interest.  The Court of Appeals described the difference between an actual conflict of interest (which mandates reversal if not waived) and a potential conflict of interest (at issue in this case):

The defendant bears the burden of establishing a denial of meaningful representation …. When such a claim is premised on a perceived conflict of interest, our precedent differentiates between actual and potential conflicts …. An actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed …and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict ….

In contrast, a potential conflict that is not waived by the accused requires reversal only if it “operates” on or “affects” the defense … — i.e., the nature of the attorney-client relationship or underlying circumstances bear a “‘substantial relation to the conduct of the defense'” …. The “requirement that a potential conflict have affected, or operated on, or borne a substantial relation to the conduct of the defense — three formulations of the same principle — is not a requirement that [the] defendant show specific prejudice” …. Nevertheless, it is the defendant’s “heavy burden” … to show that a potential conflict actually operated on the defense ….  People v Sanchez, No 107, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

, ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

,

Retroactive Tax Credit Restrictions Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, determined that the retroactive changes in the Empire Zones Program (restricting the availability of tax credits) did not, as the appellate divisions held, violate the Takings Clause, but did violate the Due Process Clause:  The Court wrote:

The purported taking here is plaintiffs’ obligation to pay tax to the State in the absence of a valid tax credit. However, “[t]he mere imposition of an obligation to pay money . . . does not give rise to a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment” …. Federal courts have held that “[f]or retroactive taxation to be a taking, it must be ‘so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation'”…. The retroactive tax liability imposed in the present case cannot be characterized as so flagrant as to constitute the confiscation of property under the Takings Clause. Plaintiffs had no guarantee that they would ever recoup their business investments through the receipt of tax credits, and the New York Constitution provides that tax exemptions are freely repealable (NY Const, art XVI, § 1).  *  *  *

We now turn to that other question: whether plaintiffs’ due process rights were infringed by the statute utilizing the three factors articulated in Replan. In terms of “the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of his reliance on the old law” (Replan, 70 NY2d at 456), the plaintiffs had no warning and no opportunity at anytime in 2008 to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the 2009 Amendments. * * *The second factor, the length of the period of retroactivity, also benefits plaintiffs. * * * Regardless of whether the period of retroactivity is deemed to span 16 or 32 months, the length of retroactivity should be considered excessive and weighs against the State. * * *   On the third factor, dispositive in this case, the State fails to set forth a valid public purpose for the retroactive application of the 2009 Amendments. The legislature did not have an important public purpose to make the law retroactive.  James Square Associates LP et al v Mullen …, Nos 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

,

Defective Acknowledgment Rendered Prenuptial Agreement Invalid

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that a defective acknowledgment on a prenuptial agreement was the type of defect that could be cured but that the notary’s affidavit was not sufficient to cure the defect.  Therefore, the prenuptial agreement was invalid.  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the statutory requirements for acknowledgments and the limited circumstances in which defects can be cured.  With regard to the specific defect at issue, the Court of Appeals wrote:

In the certificate of acknowledgment relating to the husband’s signature, the “to me known and known to me” phrase was inexplicably omitted, leaving only the following statement: “On the 8 [sic] day of July, 1997, before me came Gary Galetta described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same.” Absent the omitted language, the certificate does not indicate either that the notary public knew the husband or had ascertained through some form of proof that he was the person described in the prenuptial agreement. New York courts have long held that an acknowledgment that fails to include a certification to this effect is defective. Thus, we agree with the Appellate Division, which unanimously concluded that the certificate of acknowledgment did not conform with statutory requirements.  Galetta v Galetta, No 94, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

,

Provision Which Violates General Business Law 395-a (Re: Maintenance Agreements) Did Not Render Contract Null and Void

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read (with a dissent by Judge Smith) the Court of Appeals determined that a contract provision which violated General Business Law 395-a (2) did not render the contract null and void and a private right of action pursuant to General Business Law section 349 did not lie for the violation.  Section 395-a provides that a maintenance agreement covering parts and/or service can not be terminated by the party offering the agreement during the term of the agreement.  The maintenance agreement at issue included a “store closure” provision which allowed the defendant to terminate the maintenance agreement in the event of closure of the store issuing the agreement.  The Court assumed that the “store closure” provision violated the General Business Law but held the violation did not render the contract null and void.  The Court further determined the violation did not constitute a deceptive practice within the meaning of General Business Law 349.  Schlessinger…v Valspar Corporation, No 66, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

A Default Judgment Not Supported by “Proof of the Facts Constituting the Claim” as Required by CPLR 3215 (f) Is Not a Nullity​

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that the failure to file “proof of the facts constituting the claim” (as required by CPLR 3215(f)) in an application for a default judgment is not a jurisdictional defect that renders a default judgment a nullity.  The Court wrote:

…[T]he word “jurisdiction” is often loosely used. But in applying the principle “that a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that the defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived” …, it is necessary to understand the word in its strict, narrow sense. So understood, it refers to objections that are “fundamental to the power of adjudication of a court” …. “Lack of jurisdiction” should not be used to mean merely “that elements of a cause of action are absent” …, but that the matter before the court was not the kind of matter on which the court had power to rule.

The defect in the default judgment before us is not jurisdictional in this sense. A failure to submit the proof required by CPLR 3215(f) should lead a court to deny an application for a default judgment, but a court that does not comply with this rule has merely committed an error — it has not usurped a power it does not have. The error can be corrected by the means provided by law — i.e., by an application for relief from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015. It does not justify treating the judgment as a nullity.  Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation v H & A Locksmith, Inc…, No 118,CtApp, 5-30-13

 

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