You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING DISCOVERY; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS INVALID AND DID NOT STOP THE SPEEDY-TRIAL CLOCK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the People did not exercise due diligence in providing discovery to the defense. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. The prosecution was time-barred:

In 2019, the New York State Legislature enacted sweeping reforms that expanded and restructured disclosure obligations in criminal cases, effective at the start of 2020 (see L 2019, ch 59, § 1, pt LLL). This appeal concerns a new requirement set forth in CPL article 245 that the People file a certificate of compliance (COC) with their statutory disclosure obligations (see CPL 245.50 [1], [3]). * * *

Due diligence is a mixed question of fact and law, and thus we consider whether the fact finder’s conclusions are supported by the record … . Viewed under the proper legal standard, there is no record support for the conclusion of the courts below that prior to filing the initial COC, the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to identify mandatory discovery items relating to this case.

The belated disclosure here consisted of routinely produced disclosure materials—the creation of at least one of which was mandated by law … . The absence of such significant items of disclosure was readily noticed by the defense, which then brought it to the attention of the People and the court. The prosecution had two opportunities to establish that they had exercised due diligence, but failed to do so. At the appearance on May 26th, in which defense counsel first called attention to the missing items, the prosecutor simply asserted that he had “checked” without any elaboration as to what efforts were made to verify whether there was any outstanding discovery or whether the disclosure requested by the defense—which was in the possession of the People (see CPL 245.20 [2])—actually existed. The prosecutor speculated that such disclosure items did not exist and had not been created, and otherwise stated in a cursory fashion that all discovery had been turned over. When the parties appeared on July 6th following Bay’s CPL 30.30 motion, the People again made no mention of any efforts taken to ascertain the existence of discovery materials before the COC was filed, nor did they explain why some discovery was initially missing or how it came into their possession. People v Bay, 2023 NY Slip Op 06407, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not exercise due diligence in complying with their discovery obligations. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. If the People can demonstrate they exercised due diligence in providing discovery, the COC will not be deemed improper.

 

,

THE COUNTY, UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), HAD THE POWER TO CONDEMN AN AREA ADJACENT TO AN OFFICE BULIDING FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT; THE ALLOWED PURPOSE UNDER THE EDPL WAS “COMMERCIAL:” THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PURPOSE WAS “HEALTHCARE,” NOT “COMMERCIAL,” BECAUSE THE BUILDING WOULD HOUSE DOCTORS’ OFFICES WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) properly exercised its power under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) to obtain property be used for as parking for an office building, as well as public parking. The the fact that the building would be used for doctor’s offices did not negate the “commercial” purpose of the building within the meaning of the EDPL. Petitioner’s argued the building served a “healthcare,” not a “commercial” purpose and therefore was not subject to the condemnation power of the OCICA:

General Municipal Law § 858 (4) grants industrial development agencies the power to “acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the [EDPL], or otherwise and to use, real property or rights or easements therein necessary for its corporate purposes.” “The purposes of [an industrial development] agency are to promote, develop, encourage[,] and assist in the acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, equipping[,] and furnishing industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial, research, renewable energy[,] and recreation facilities” … . The question here is whether OCIDA appropriately determined that taking the property was necessary for a “commercial” purpose.

As a general matter, a parking facility used by the customers of a profit-making business plainly has a “commercial” purpose. Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v Oneida County Indus. Dev. Agency, 2023 NY Slip Op 06406. CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: The Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) allows land to be condemned by a county industrial development agency for “commercial” but not “healthcare” purposes. Here the county properly condemned land next to an office building for parking, despite the fact that doctors would be tenants in the office building.

 

,

PETITIONER PATHOLOGIST IS BEING SUED BY AN INMATE WHO ALLEGES MISDIAGNOSIS OF A BIOPSY; BECAUSE THE REQUEST FOR THE BIOPSY CAME FROM A DOCTOR WHO WAS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS), AND NOT DIRECTLY FROM DOCCS, THE STATE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY THE PATHOLOGIST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the state did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify the petitioner, a pathologist, who concluded the lump under an inmate’s arm was benign. Dr. Cotie, a physician who provided services to inmates under a contract with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), had taken a biopsy and had sent it to petitioner for analysis. One year after the “benign” finding, the inmate was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Because the request for the biopsy analysis did not come directly from DOCCS, pursuant to the language in the Correction Law, the state was not required to defend or indemnify the petitioner pathologist:

Under Correction Law § 24-a, the provisions of Public Officers Law § 17 are made applicable to “any person holding a license to practice a profession. . . who is rendering or has rendered professional services authorized under such license while acting at the request of the department or a facility of the department in providing health care and treatment or professional consultation to incarcerated individuals of state correctional facilities” … . The Attorney General has interpreted this language to mean that the State’s obligation to defend and indemnify applies only where there has been an express request by DOCCS for the services of a particular provider—i.e., a formal arrangement or understanding made in advance between DOCCS and the healthcare professional. * * *

Petitioner performed pathology services on the biopsy sample as a result of his contract with the hospital, not because he was acting at DOCCS’ request or executing any public responsibility associated with the care or treatment of incarcerated individuals. Matter of Jun Wang v James, 2023 NY Slip Op 06405, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Unless DOCCS directly and expressly requests that a doctor provide a service for an inmate, the state will not indemnify or defend the doctor in a lawsuit by an  inmate. A request from a doctor under contract with DOCCS will not trigger indemnification or defense.

 

, , ,

HERE A WITNESS TO THE SHOOTING IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; UNDER THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED; THE COURT OFFERED GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE OR AVOID THE SITUATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant was not prejudiced by a witness to the shooting who identified him as the shooter for the first-time at trial. The opinion takes note of the suggestiveness of a first-time identification at trial and offers instructions on how the situation should be handled and/or avoided. Here, however, the the defendant was aware of the witness and did not request any identification procedures, surveillance video captured both the shooter and the victim, the victim knew the shooter, and the victim identified the shooter. The court noted that any error was clearly harmless:

Concerning identifications made at trial, this Court and many others have recognized the inherent suggestiveness of the traditional in-court identification procedure, with a single defendant sitting at a table with defense counsel … . As with an unduly suggestive pretrial identification, it will often be immediately clear to the witness who the accused defendant is, especially if the witness has a rudimentary knowledge of courtroom seating arrangements. The principal danger is that, faced with the pressures of testifying at trial, the witness will identify the defendant as the perpetrator simply because the defendant is sitting in the appropriate spot, and not because the witness recognizes the defendant as the same person that they observed during the crime. Inasmuch as the traditional courtroom seating arrangement may itself suggest to the witness who should be identified, trial courts must be vigilant to ensure that where a witness has not previously identified the defendant in a properly conducted pretrial identification procedure such as a photo array or lineup, the suggestiveness of a first-time, in-court identification procedure does not create an unreasonable danger of a mistaken identification. People v Perdue, 2023 NY Slip Op 06404, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here, under the unique facts of the case, defendant was not prejudiced by allowing a witness to identify him as the shooter for the first time at trial. The court offered guidance on how the situation should be handled and/or avoided.

 

, ,

THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC) TO DRAW THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS; THE IRC IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS REDISTRICTING PLAN BY FEBRUARY 28, 2024 (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the courts can compel (mandamus) the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to draw the legislative districts. The opinion is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize:

In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded. Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commn., 2023 NY Slip Op 06344, CtApp 12-12-23

Practice Point: The courts have the power to compel the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to submit a redistricting plan. The IRC was ordered to do so by February 28, 2024.

 

,

THE EMPLOYER’S REQUEST, AT THE HEARING, TO CROSS-EXAMINE CLAIMANT’S PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEVANT REGULATION IS MANDATORY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) should have granted the employer’s request, made at the hearing, to cross-examine the claimant’s physician, who had submitted a report. The Court of Appeals noted that the relevant language in the regulation was mandatory (“shall”):

The rule at issue here provides that, if “the employer or its carrier or special fund desires to produce for cross-examination an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee shall grant an adjournment for such purpose” (12 NYCRR 300.10 [c] …). The mandatory nature of this language contrasts with the language used in the Board’s other rules governing adjournment of hearings, which afford referees discretion and create exceptions to otherwise mandatory rules. For example, if the employer fails to present evidence as directed by the Board, the referee “may adjourn the hearing” and, if the employer fails to present evidence on the adjourned date, the referee “shall proceed to make a decision unless” the referee finds “extraordinary circumstances” warranting “a further adjournment” … . Under the plain language of the rule, the employer properly exercised its rights by making its request at a hearing on the claim prior to the WCLJ’s ruling on the merits … . Matter of Lazalee v Wegman’s Food Mkts., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06343, CtApp 12-12-23

Practice Point: In a Workers’ Compensation hearing, the employer’s request for an adjournment to cross-examine the claimant’s physician must be granted.

 

,

TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, determined evidence of two prior possession-of-a-weapon incidents in 2006 and 2007, one uncharged and one misdemeanor, should not have been admitted under Molineux in the instant 2017 weapons-possession prosecution. In the 2006 and 2007 cases, defendant claimed the weapons belonged to another and he wasn’t aware of their presence. In the 2017 case defendant claimed someone else put the weapons in his vehicle without his knowledge. The weapons were legally purchased and registered to the defendant in Florida:

During an inventory search, the police recovered various items, including two small bags of marijuana and cash. They also found a loaded .45 caliber gun in the truck’s center console, as well as three handguns and ammunition in the flatbed area; each firearm was legally purchased and registered in Telfair’s name in Florida. The defendant was charged with several crimes related to possession of weapons and ammunition, as well as various vehicle and traffic violations.

The People moved under People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901) to introduce evidence of two prior incidents involving Telfair’s possession of a weapon: a 2006 uncharged crime and a 2007 misdemeanor conviction for weapon possession. The People expected that Telfair would claim at trial that someone else had packed his truck and unbeknownst to him, placed his guns inside it, and the prior acts would show the defendant actually knew he possessed the firearms on the day of his arrest. Defense counsel responded that given the temporal remoteness and dissimilarity of the prior incidents, they had “little, if any, probative value” and were highly prejudicial, in part because the 2007 conviction concerned the same charge for which Telfair was now on trial. When asked whether he would assert that Telfair did not know the guns were in his car, defense counsel did not disclaim the defense. * * *

The 2006 and 2007 incidents were neither very similar nor close in time to the 2017 incident. Just the opposite: they involved different guns, different sets of circumstances, different excuses, and occurred more than 10 years earlier. People v Telfair, 2023 NY Slip Op 05965, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: This case must be read carefully and repeatedly, as it illustrates subtle but profoundly important restrictions on the admissibility of Molineux evidence.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE ONLY DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT; THREE JUDGE DISSENT FOCUSED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon. The weapon was discovered by a police officer under a floor mat in defendant’s car after a traffic stop. At trial defendant claimed he was stopped on his way to surrender the weapon to a gun buyback program. The majority concluded defense counsel was ineffective for failure to request the “voluntary surrender” jury charge. Defense counsel requested the “temporary and lawful possession” jury charge, which was directly contradicted by the trial evidence:

Here, counsel knew that his client’s explanation was that he was traveling to turn the gun in to the NYC gun buyback program. Indeed, in his opening statement, counsel admitted to the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon and offered a defense, explaining that Mr. Debellis [defendant] , in desperate need of money, was transporting the gun to a police buyback program in the Bronx.

However, after announcing that line of defense and supporting it through Mr. Debellis’s trial testimony, counsel failed to request the only jury instruction that would give it any legal weight—a defense of voluntary surrender under PL 265.20 (a) (1) (f). Counsel premised his case instead on the common-law defense of temporary and lawful possession, which was completely inapplicable given the length of time Mr. Debellis had possessed the weapon in contravention of a preexisting court order that he had to divest himself of all firearms. Even after the court explicitly told counsel that that it would not instruct the jury on temporary and lawful possession because it did not fit the evidence, counsel failed to request an instruction on the statutory defense that fit his client’s testimony and counsel’s own argument to the jury

From the dissent:

Today the majority holds that defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge that would have allowed the jury to find that defendant’s possession of the unlicensed gun was lawful because, at trial, defendant claimed for the first time that he was on his way to a police agency to surrender the gun. Because no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supports such a charge, defendant was not entitled to it. Nor was counsel’s overall performance deficient. Nevertheless, defendant, who denied having a weapon when asked by the police and who was allowed access to the area where he had hidden a loaded gun based on that false statement, thereby endangering the life of the officer who stopped him and numerous nearby civilians, now has his unlawful possession of a weapon conviction reversed by this Court. People v Debellis 2023 NY Slip Op 05964, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here defense counsel did not request a jury charge for the only viable defense offered by the defendant in his trial testimony (i.e., he was on his way to surrender the weapon to the gun buyback program when the police found it under the floor mat of his car). The majority held defense counsel was ineffective. The dissent focused on the weakness of the defense. Bottom line, if the defendant has only one defense, even if it is not credible, defense counsel is obligated to present it to the jury.

 

, ,

WHERE, AS HERE, THE SORA COURT EXPRESSLY FINDS THERE WAS NO SEXUAL CONDUCT OR MOTIVE UNDERLYING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD, THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENDANT BE DESIGNATED A SEX OFFENDER VIOLATES DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined requiring defendant to register as a sex offender based upon an nonsexual unlawful imprisonment of a child violated defendant’s right to due process of law:

Defendant stole money at gunpoint from his aunt in the presence of his 10-year-old cousin for which he pleaded guilty to, inter alia, the unlawful imprisonment of the child. For this crime, New York requires that he register as a sex offender and comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). It is undisputed that the crime was non-sexual and that the SORA court found that defendant is not a sex offender and poses no sexual threat. Nevertheless, the courts below felt constrained by People v Knox (12 NY3d 60 [2009]) to impose SORA requirements. Defendant contends that the holdings in Knox and its companion cases are distinguishable and do not control his as-applied challenge. We agree and conclude that requiring defendant to register violates his due process rights and does nothing to further the legislative purpose of SORA to protect the public from actual sex offenders. * * *

… [T]he core holding and reasoning in Knox does not control here where defendant’s criminal behavior and his lack of future risk of sexual harm to children distinguish him from the Knox defendants. The Knox Court’s conclusion that designating those three defendants as sex offenders and mandating their SORA registration was rationally related to the government’s interest in protecting children from sexual assault lacks force here, where defendant’s offense belies any such threat. Where a SORA court expressly finds that there was no sexual conduct or motive and no risk of future sexual offense, application of the sex offender label cannot be justified on the ground that a defendant may pose a risk of future sexual misconduct, and there is no further administrative burden in reaching that conclusion. Applying SORA to defendant violates his due process rights by impinging on his liberty interest to be free of the improper designation and registration as a “sex offender.”  People v Brown, 2023 NY Slip Op 05973, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here the SORA court found there was no sexual conduct or motive underlying the unlawful imprisonment of the child. Under that circumstance, to designate the defendant a sex offender violates his right to due process of law.

 

,

THE TRAFFIC STOP OF A BICYCLIST IS A SEIZURE REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR PROBABLE CAUSE DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE ROAD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ETC.); HERE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE GUN SEIZED FROM HIM AFTER THE STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined a traffic-stop of a bicyclist is a seizure and requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause defendant violated the rules of the road (Vehicle and Traffic Law, NYC Administrative Law, etc.). Here the defendant was riding in the middle of the road such that cars avoided him, was holding something in his waistband, and had only one had on the handlebars. He was not charged with any violations of the rules of the road. When stopped the defendant admitted he had a gun which was seized. Defendant’s statements and the gun should have been suppressed:

“Like all seizures, the officer’s action[s]” during a traffic stop “must be justified at its inception” … . Here, the officers’ actions were unjustified from the beginning because, as the prosecution concedes, the police possessed neither probable cause of a VTL violation nor reasonable suspicion of criminality … . Although the officer vaguely commented during the suppression hearing that defendant was riding “in a somewhat reckless manner,” he did not testify that he suspected a VTL violation—let alone that he had probable cause of one Instead, the officer testified that the primary motivation for the stop was that defendant was “holding an object in his waistband,” but admitted that he did not know what the “object” was, except that it was “bulky.” This observation of course fell well short of establishing reasonable suspicion of criminality … . Indeed, at no point before the stop did the officers suspect defendant was carrying contraband and, in fact, they were “caught . . . off guard” after the stop, when defendant admitted that he was carrying a gun. * * *

From the dissent:

A police officer observed defendant Lance Rodriguez riding a bicycle while clutching a bulky object at his waistband. The officer asked defendant to stop and, upon doing so, defendant admitted that he was carrying a gun. Today, the majority abandons this Court’s long-settled precedent, overturns a gun conviction stemming from reasonable police action, and creates a new rule that transforms any stop of a bicycle from a facts and circumstances inquiry into a per se seizure. People v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05972, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The traffic stop of a bicyclist is a “seizure” requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause to believe the bicyclist has violated the rules of the road.

 

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