You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, , ,

​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which criminalizes the use of restraints which restrict air or blood flow is valid:

We are asked to determine whether section 10-181 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which makes criminal the use of certain restraints by police officers during an arrest, violates the New York Constitution on either preemption or due process grounds. Because section 10-181 does not conflict with state law or regulate in a field in which the state has expressly or impliedly precluded local legislation, it is a permissible exercise of local lawmaking authority. The language of the section also provides fair notice of the conduct prohibited and is sufficiently definite to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and is therefore not void for vagueness.

In July 2020, New York City Administrative Code § 10-181 became law, making it a misdemeanor offense for any “person” to “restrain an individual in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-181 [a], [b]).

… [T]he enactment of section 10-181 was spurred, in large part, by the widely publicized deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd following the use of force by police officers during their arrests … . Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of New York, Inc. v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05960, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: A NYC Administrative Code provision criminalizing restraints which restrict blood or air flow is valid and enforceable.

 

, ,

THE LOCAL LAW CREATING THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD (PAB) WITH THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE POLICE OFFICERS CONFLICTED WITH THE POLICE UNION’S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA); BECAUSE THE UNION NEVER AGREED TO THE TRANSFER OF DISCIPLINARY POWERS TO THE PAB, THE LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Egan, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Local Law creating a Police Accountability Board (PAB) with the power to discipline police officers was invalid because the law conflicted with the union’s (the Locust Club’s)  collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the union had never agreed to the change:

Since the 1980s, the collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) in place between the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. (hereinafter the Locust Club), the union representing police officers in the City, has governed the procedure for disciplining police officers. In 2019, the Council of the City of Rochester adopted, the Mayor of the City of Rochester signed, and voters approved via referendum, Local Law No. 2, which created the Police Accountability Board (hereinafter PAB), a body of nine City residents whose powers included the exclusive authority to “investigate and make determinations respecting” any police officer accused of misconduct. That authority included the power to conduct a hearing on the alleged misconduct and to impose disciplinary sanctions, up to and including dismissal, if the officer were found guilty. The City’s police chief was free to impose additional punishment upon that officer, but was obliged at a minimum to implement the sanction determined by the PAB.

There is no dispute that the disciplinary procedures set forth in Local Law No. 2 deviated in significant respects from the agreed-upon procedures set forth in the CBA then in effect and that they were not agreed to by the Locust Club. The Locust Club and others commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 2 and, in particular, its transfer of police disciplinary authority to the PAB. Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition in part and held, among other things, that Local Law No. 2 was invalid to the extent that it transferred that authority. Upon the City Council’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed … . The Appellate Division held that the City was obliged to negotiate with the Locust Club on the issue of police discipline because in 1985 it had repealed the provision of its charter vesting a local official in charge of the police force with unilateral authority over police discipline and that the City’s effort to revive that authority in Local Law No. 2 necessarily failed under the Municipal Home Rule Law because it was inconsistent with a general law, namely, “the Taylor Law’s mandate of collective bargaining for police discipline” … .  Matter of Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. v City of Rochester, 2023 NY Slip Op 05959, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The Local Law creating the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and granting the PAB the power to discipline police officers conflicted with disciplinary provisions in the police union’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Because the union never agreed to the transfer of disciplinary powers to the PAB, the Local Law was deemed invalid.

 

, ,

TO COMPLY WITH THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIES ABOUT A DNA PROFILE MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE FINAL STAGE OF THE DNA ANALYSIS OR MUST HAVE CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS USING ONLY THE RAW DATA; THE WITNESS HERE DID NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not demonstrate the witness through whom the DNA evidence was admitted had the necessary involvement in the DNA analysis:

We have held that “a single analyst” may testify so long as it is “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data, as opposed to a testifying analyst functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . Accordingly, testimony from an analyst is sufficient where the witness has engaged in ” ‘the final-level DNA analysis, reviewed the results of the preliminary evidence processing conducted by colleagues, produced the relevant DNA profiles, and expressed her expert opinion’ ” as to the DNA match … . …

… [T]he testifying analyst must have either participated in or directly supervised this “final” step that generates the DNA profile, or must conduct an “independent analysis” of the data used to do so in a manner that enables replication of the determinations made at that stage in order to verify the profile …. The record here fails to establish that the testifying analyst had the requisite involvement with either of the DNA profiles. People v Jordan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05957, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not demonstrate the witness testifying about defendant’s DNA profile participated in the final stage of the DNA analysis or conducted an independent analysis using only the raw data. Therefore the analysist’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.

 

THE LICENSE ALLOWING THE USE OF A BOAT SLIP AT A COUNTRY CLUB WAS REVOCABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB (THE LICENSOR) (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the license at issue was revocable at will by the licensor:

… [P]laintiff Skaneateles Country Club (SCC) undertook a project to construct 80 boat slips on Skaneateles Lake for the benefit of club members. Interested members, including defendant Olivia Cambs, were required to contribute an initial capitalization payment and enter into an Assignment Agreement. Through the Assignment Agreement, SCC “assign[ed] and transfer[red]” to defendant the “use and occupancy right with respect to one boat slip,” subject to certain express conditions. SCC reserved the right to determine the specific boat slip defendant would occupy, and defendant agreed to comply with all of SCC’s rules and policies, pay an annual maintenance fee, and adhere to any applicable laws, ordinances or governmental regulations. The agreement also permitted defendant to make a “Legacy Transfer” of the slip to her offspring if certain specified conditions were met. Further, the agreement provided that, “[i]n the event [defendant] elect[ed] to terminate this Assignment Agreement” or was no longer a club member, SCC would return the initial capitalization payment.

Following an unrelated dispute with defendant, SCC commenced this declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the agreement was a license terminable at will by SCC. …

… [N]othing in the parties’ agreement limits SCC’s right to terminate or otherwise evinces an intent to alter the general rule that licenses are revocable at will by the licensor … . Although licenses may become irrevocable by the licensor in certain circumstances … , we are not satisfied that any such circumstances are presented here. Skaneateles Country Club v Cambs, 2023 NY Slip Op 05352, CtApp 1-24-23

Practice Point: Although under some circumstances licenses cannot be revoked at will by the licensor, that is not general rule. Here the license allowing use of boat slip at a county club was revocable at will. Nothing in the agreement evinced an intent to alter the general rule.

 

, , ,

THE REGULATIONS ALLOWING FAMILIAL DNA SEARCHES WERE VALIDLY PROMULGATED; THE REGULATIONS ALLOW DNA SEARCHES WHICH REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PERSONS IN THE CRIMINAL DNA DATABASE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the Commission on Forensic Sciences properly promulgated the Familial DNA Search (FDS) Regulations. The regulations allow DNA searches which may reveal the identity of relatives of a persons whose DNA is in the database. The underlying Article 78 petition was brought by two men, never convicted of a crime, whose brothers were in the DNA database as a result of a felony conviction:

There is no provision in the FDS for an identified relative to be notified and/or challenge the search before law enforcement officials may proceed with an investigation based on a familial match from the Databank. Petitioners Terrence Stevens and Benjamin Joseph are two Black men living New York who have never been convicted of a crime. Each has a brother whose genetic information has been collected and stored in the DNA Databank as the result of a felony conviction, in accordance with Databank Act requirements. Mr. Stephens and Mr. Joseph brought this CLPR article 78 proceeding against respondents … alleging … that respondents lacked statutory authority to promulgate the FDS Regulations and therefore violated the separation of powers doctrine under the New York Constitution. Respondents denied petitioners’ allegations and asserted that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the FDS Regulations. * * *

Given the clarity and specificity of the guidelines provided in the Databank Act, respondents acted within their delegated authority. The FDS Regulations are a result of “administrative rule-making,” not “legislative policy-making” … . Here, the legislature made the policy determination that New York State should have well-developed DNA testing programs to assist law enforcement, that the use of the information should be limited, and the data and results secure. Matter of Stevens v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 05351, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: The regulations allowing familial DNA searches which reveal the identity of relatives of persons in the criminal DNA database are constitutional. There was an extensive three-judge dissent.

 

, ,

NYPD’S WRITTEN INVENTORY SEARCH PROTOCOL IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HERE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TURNED UP A FIREARM (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive dissent, determined the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) written inventory search protocol was constitutional. Defendant was arrested after a traffic stop for possession of a gravity knife. A subsequent inventory search of defendant’s vehicle turned up a firearm from the trunk:

Defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the NYPD’s inventory search protocol was unconstitutional because it gives officers too much discretion in conducting inventory searches and that the searching officers failed to create a meaningful inventory of defendant’s items. At the suppression hearing, the People introduced the NYPD’s written inventory search protocol as set forth in section 218-13 of the NYPD Patrol Guide. The protocol instructs officers to first “[s]earch the interior of the vehicle thoroughly,” “includ[ing] any area that may contain valuables.” The protocol lists 10 areas within the car that must be searched, such as the glove compartment and trunk, but does not limit the searching officers to those spaces. Second, section 218-13 directs officers to force open the “trunk, glove compartment, etc. only if it can be done with minimal damage” except in particular situations including where officers “[r]easonably suspect that the item contains weapons, explosives, hazardous materials or contraband.” Lastly, the protocol requires officers to remove the valuables from the vehicle and invoice, or “voucher,” the property on a specifically referenced invoice form. Section 218-13 instructs officers to list property of little value inside the vehicle, “within reason,” in their activity log and cross reference the property “to the invoice number covering any valuables removed.” Both officers testified that the purpose of an inventory search is, in part, to secure a defendant’s items. The arresting officer further testified that it is an officer’s duty to safeguard a defendant’s recovered items prior to vouchering the items. People v Douglas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05350, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: Here the NYPD’s written inventory search protocol for vehicles was found constitutional. Defendant was arrested after a traffic stop for possession of a gravity knife. A subsequent inventory search of defendant’s vehicle turned up a firearm. There was an extensive dissenting opinion.

 

HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to add a party to a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run:

The relation back doctrine applies when (1) the claims arise out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence; (2) the new party is “united in interest” with an original defendant and thus can be charged with such notice of the commencement of the action such that a court concludes that the party will not be prejudiced in defending against the action; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistaken omission, they would have been named in the initial pleading (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 [1995]).

The doctrine focuses on the notice and prejudice to the added party. However, the doctrine does not apply when a plaintiff “intentionally decides not to assert a claim against a party known to be potentially liable” or when the new party was omitted “to obtain a tactical advantage in the litigation” (id. at 181). These exceptions minimize gamesmanship and manipulation of the CPLR (see id.).

Here, petitioners established that they satisfied the Buran test and that their omission of a necessary party was not a deliberate, informed litigation strategy to gain tactical advantage. The relation back doctrine applies, and petitioners’ claims against the newly added party were timely interposed under CPLR 203 (c). Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 2023 NY Slip Op 05349, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: If the criteria laid out in Buran, 87 NY2d 173, are met, the relation-back doctrine can be applied to allow adding a party to the lawsuit after the statute of limitations has run.

 

, ,

​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, THE PEOPLE AGREED TO DISMISS THE TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PEOPLE THEN APPEALED; THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVER A DISSENT, HELD THE MATTER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the error was not reviewable because the People consented to it. In 2022 the Court of Appeals held that the statutory speedy trial rules do not apply to traffic infractions which stand alone, i.e., the traffic infraction is not charged along with a felony, misdemeanor or violation. The defendant’s traffic infraction had been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds with the People’s consent. The People then appealed the dismissal:

On appeal, the People contend that CPL 30.30 (1) (e)—which took effect more than a year before defendant was even charged—was enacted to clarify that CPL 30.30 (1) applies ” ‘to accusatory instruments charging traffic infractions jointly with a felony, misdemeanor, or violation,’ ” but that, as we stated in People v Galindo, ” ‘actions involving only traffic infractions would still not be covered by the speedy trial statute’ ” (quoting 38 NY3d 199, 201, 206 [2022] [emphasis added]). Thus, the instant appeal involves no intervening newly declared principle of law.

Because the People agreed in Town Court that CPL 30.30 applied to the simplified traffic information, the issue is unreviewable (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, we engender no unjust result by applying our well-settled principles governing reviewability to reject the People’s attempt to reinstate the accusatory instrument against this pro se defendant, now almost two years after dismissal, by renouncing their express concession that CPL 30.30 applied. People v Lovett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05348, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: If the People agree to an erroneous ruling and then appeal that ruling, the matter may not be reviewable by an appellate court.

 

,

DEFENDANT APPEARED IN COURT WITH A SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO INFORMED THE COURT ANOTHER LEGAL AID LAWYER WAS BEING ASSIGNED TO DEFENDANT’S CASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT “WITHOUT COUNSEL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 30.30; THE ASSOCIATED SPEEDY-TRIAL TIME-PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term. determined the defendant was not “without counsel” during an eight-day period. Therefore that eight-day period must be charged to the People and the People were not ready for the trial within the statutory 90 days:

Under CPL 30.30 (4) (f), a “period during which the defendant is without counsel through no fault of the court” must be excluded when calculating the time within which the People must be ready for trial. However, a defendant is not “without counsel” within the meaning of the statute when appearing with substitute counsel … .

Here, defendant was assigned an attorney from The Legal Aid Society during his arraignment. On November 5, 2018, the date that defendant’s case was calendared for trial, defendant appeared in court with a different attorney from that office, who informed the court that defendant’s original attorney was leaving the office and the case was being reassigned to another attorney from Legal Aid. Defendant plainly was represented at that appearance and was therefore not “without counsel” … . People v Justice A., 2023 NY Slip Op 05306, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Appearing with substitute counsel is not appearing “without counsel” within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4)(f). The associated time should not have been charged to the defendant. The People therefore were not ready for trial within the statutory 90-day period.

 

, ,

FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lynch, reversing the Appellate Division, determined forensic evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity should not have been excluded pursuant to the Rape Shield Law. Under the circumstances, by excluding forensic evidence of sexual activity which did not implicate the defendant deprived defendant of the right to present a defense. The complainant alleged defendant inserted his finger in her vagina and fondled her breasts. A forensic analysis of a vaginal swab and complainant’s underwear revealed the presence of complainant’s saliva and fluids from two unidentified males:

… [T]he legislature enumerated five exceptions to CPL 60.42’s [the Rape Shield Law’s] evidentiary proscriptions. The first four exceptions “allow evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct in narrowly defined factual circumstances,” whereas the fifth “is a broader ‘interest of justice’ provision vesting discretion in the trial court” (Williams, 81 NY2d at 311). “The exceptions . . . recognize that any law circumscribing the ability of the accused to defend against criminal charges remains subject to limitation by constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses” … .

Defendant argues that the forensic evidence was admissible under several of the exceptions set forth in CPL 60.42. We need not address every basis raised because we conclude that the trial court erred in denying admission of the evidence under CPL 60.42 (5). Under this subdivision, evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct may be admitted in evidence during a sex crime prosecution when it “is determined by the [trial] court after an offer of proof by the accused . . . to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice” (CPL 60.42 [5]). “Offer of proof is not a term of art but its generally accepted meaning . . . is to summarize the substance or content of the evidence” … . In his motion in limine, defense counsel delineated the findings contained in the forensic reports and explained how they constituted “evidence of something other than . . . defendant having engaged in inappropriate and unlawful sexual activity with [the complainant].” This was a sufficient offer of proof under Williams (81 NY2d at 314). People v Cerda, 2023 NY Slip Op 05305, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here the interest-of-justice exception to the Rape Shield Law applied. The majority found that the exclusion of forensic evidence of complainant’s sexual activity (which did not implicate the defendant) violated defendant’s right to put on a defense.

 

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