You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY DID NOT SOUND HER AIR HORN BEFORE THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ VEHICLE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPUTY TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION; THEREFORE THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THE DEPUTY DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissent, determined the county was entitled to summary judgment in this negligence suit stemming from an intersection accident involving a sheriff’s deputy (Wong) who was responding to an emergency call. Although the court found that Wong did not sound her air horn prior to the collision with plaintiffs’ (Granaths’) car, the evidence demonstrated Wong did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others:

It is undisputed that, before proceeding through the intersection, Deputy Fong slowed down, came to a complete stop at least once, observed northbound traffic, waited for that traffic to yield to her, and turned on her overheard lights. The Granaths contend that a jury could nonetheless find that Deputy Fong exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others by failing to activate her air horn or siren; declining to call in a “Code 77” as required by MCSD [sheriff’s department] policy; and proceeding into the intersection despite having an obstructed view of southbound traffic.

We agree with the Appellate Division that defendants met their initial burden on their summary judgment motion and that, in opposition, the Granaths failed to raise a material triable issue of fact. Even assuming Deputy Fong failed to activate her air horn or siren, call in a “Code 77,” or observe southbound traffic—either because her view was obstructed or she neglected to look to her right—taken together with the actions she undisputably did take—slowing down, stopping, activating her emergency lights and proceeding only once she observed northbound traffic yield to her—we cannot conclude that Deputy Fong, with “conscious indifference to the outcome,” “reckless[ly] disregard[ed] . . . a highly probable risk of harm” … . Granath v Monroe County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01586, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the meaning of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” in the context of an intersection traffic accident involving a sheriff’s deputy responding to an emergency call.

 

, , ,

TWO PEOPLE WERE SHOT IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTIONS, DID NOT ADMIT TO FIRING SEPARATELY AT EACH VICTIM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE COMMISSION OF TWO DISTINCT CRIMES; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES COULD NOT BE IMPOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined the prosecutor did not demonstrate that the two victims of this drive-by shooting were struck by different bullets fired separately at each, causing separate injuries to each. Therefore the judge could not impose consecutive sentences. The court noted that this issue need be preserved for appeal:​

… [T]he prosecutor should have been aware at the time of the plea, based on our unambiguous caselaw, that they had the burden of ensuring defendant allocuted to sufficient facts to establish that he separately shot at the two victims or that the victims were injured by separate bullets, in order for consecutive sentencing to be legally authorized. But because the prosecutor failed to satisfy their burden and place on the record the alleged “separate and distinct” acts underlying the two crimes … , the trial court had no legal authority to impose consecutive sentences in this case. People v Sabb, 2026 NY Slip Op 01590, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Here the defendant was never asked during the plea allocutions whether he fired two shots separately injuring the two victims. Therefore the People did not meet their burden to prove the commission of two separate crimes and consecutive sentences could not be imposed.

 

, ,

THE ACT OF SIMPLE POSSESSSION OF A WEAPON WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE WEAPON WAS USED TO SHOOT THE VICTIM DURING A ROBBERY; THEREFORE, DESPITE THE OVERLAP OF THE ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND THE ELEMENTS OF FELONY MURDER AND ROBBERY, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE PROPERLY IMPOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the sentence for simple possession of a weapon was properly imposed to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences for felony murder and robbery:

Penal Law § 70.25 (2) governs consecutive sentencing, providing that “[w]hen more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other, the sentences . . . must run concurrently.” Otherwise, the decision to impose consecutive sentences is a matter of discretion; the statute provides that “when multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time . . . the sentence or sentences imposed by the court shall run either concurrently or consecutively . . . in such manner as the court directs at the time of sentence” … .

To determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a sentencing court must first examine the statutory elements of the crimes and determine whether those elements overlap “under either prong” of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) and, if they do, “the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the ‘acts or omissions’ committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . That is, where sufficient evidence of separate and distinct acts is presented by the People, “consecutive sentences are possible regardless of whether the statutory elements of the offenses overlap” … .

… [T]he convictions at issue here have overlapping material elements. * * * Whatever the overlap, however, we conclude that the People met their burden of establishing that the defendant’s acts here were separate and distinct and therefore the consecutive sentences imposed were legal.

The People demonstrated that defendant’s possession of the gun in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3) was an act distinct from the commission of the robbery. Defendant obtained the gun, at minimum, more than one hour before the robbery, carried it across approximately 15 city blocks, and placed it under a bed in a co-conspirator’s home for “a little while” before eventually retrieving the gun and walking over to the intended victim’s building. Evidence that defendant obtained the gun and then used it to commit the substantive crime provided a sufficient basis for the sentencing judge to impose consecutive sentences. … ” ‘[t]he evidence clearly established that defendant was carrying the weapon at the time he encountered and shot the victim,’ ” and therefore ” ‘the act of possession was complete before the shooting, and consecutive sentences were authorized by’ ” the statute … . People v Billups, 2026 NY Slip Op 01589, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a judge may impose consecutive sentences despite an overlap of the elements of the crimes.

 

,

HERE A “CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY” WAS NEVER FILED FOR ANY VIOLATION OF PROBATION BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED WHILE DEFENDANT WAS STILL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT; WHEN DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF PROBATION AGAIN, PROBATION WAS REVOKED AND DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION; BECAUSE THE REVOCATION AND SENTENCE TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED, THE SENTENCING COURT HAD BEEN STRIPPED OF JURISDICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, because no “declaration of delinquency” had ever been filed, defendant’s [Mr. Curry’s] period of probation was never tolled. Therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his probation and sentence him to incarceration after his probationary period expired:

From 2019 through 2021, Mr. Curry participated in the drug treatment program with mixed results. The DTC [drug treatment court] made efforts to support a positive outcome, permitting Mr. Curry’s continued release after positive drug screens and ensuring he received outpatient treatment. July 5, 2021—the date at which Mr. Curry’s probation was set to expire—passed while Mr. Curry continued to participate in DTC. On December 14, 2021, due to another positive drug screen and missed court dates, the DTC revoked Mr. Curry’s probation and sentenced him to two years of incarceration and three years of post-release supervision. People v Curry, 2026 NY Slip Op 01448, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: If a defendant violates probation but no certificate of delinquency is filed, the probationary period continues to run is not tolled. Here, despite probation violations by the defendant, no certificate of delinquency was ever filed. The court therefore did not have jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation and sentence him to incarceration after the expiration of his probationary period.​

 

,

THE STREET STOP OF DEFENDANT WAS INVALID UNDER BOTH THE US SUPREME COURT’S “HILL VS CALIFORNIA” “MISTAKEN ARREST” CRITERIA AND THE NYS “DEBOUR” STREET STOP CRITERIA; THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT AS HE FLED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined the parole investigators did not have “reasonable suspicion” that the defendant was in fact the parole absconder for whom they had a warrant when they pulled along side the defendant on the street in an unmarked car. The parole investigators wore civilian clothes. The defendant, who was not the parole absconder, ran and threw away a firearm. He ultimately pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a firearm. The defendant was wearing a ski mask so the investigators could not see his face when they pulled along side of him:

Supreme Court denied suppression, applying a rule for mistaken arrests derived from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hill v California (401 US 797 [1971]). The court credited the testimony of the investigator and his partner and held that the defendant’s physical similarities with the absconder, coupled with his “immediate” flight upon being approached, supported the officers’ reasonable belief that the defendant was the target of their warrant. * * *

The defendant and the People disagree about whether we should evaluate the investigators’ pursuit and arrest under De Bour or Hill. * * *

We need not decide which of the tests should control, because in this scenario we do not perceive a meaningful difference between Hill’s requirement of a reasonable mistaken belief and De Bour’s level three standard of reasonable suspicion. … Under Hill, the arresting officer must provide “reasonable, articulable grounds to believe that the suspect is the intended arrestee” … . By the same token, our De Bour caselaw specifies that reasonable suspicion requires an officer to point to “specific and articulable facts which, along with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted th[e] intrusion” … . Thus, when it comes to evaluating this particular scenario, the tests essentially ask the same question: whether the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s appearance and any additional observations about their behavior, justifies the resulting police-citizen encounter.  * * *

Nothing in the record here demonstrates that the defendant could have known that he was fleeing from law enforcement. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01447, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Here the US Supreme Court’s “mistaken arrest” criteria for a valid street stop and the NYS “Debour” criteria for a valid street stop required the same level of “reasonable suspicion.”

 

,

THE FOURTEEN-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the 14-month pre-indictment delay did not deprive defendant of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Defendant was incarcerated when he threw urine on a corrections officer. The court analyzed the facts under the “Taranovich” criteria (37 NY2d 442):

This Court analyzes due process claims predicated on a pre-indictment delay by weighing the five factors set forth in People v Taranovich: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . “The Taranovich framework is a holistic one—that is, ‘no one factor or combination of the factors . . . is necessarily decisive or determinative of the speedy trial claim'” … . People v Tyson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01446, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the Taranovich factors are applied to determine whether a pre-indictment delay violates the constitutional right to a s speedy trial.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD LEGITIMATE STRATEGIC REASONS FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO A REPUGNANT VERDICT, INCLUDING THE AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF RE-EXPOSING DEFENDANT TO AN ATTEMPTED SECOND-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined defendant did not demonstrate his attorney’s failure to object to a repugnant verdict constituted ineffective assistance:

Defendant has not demonstrated a lack of strategic or other legitimate explanation for his attorney’s failure to object to the jury verdict as repugnant (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Counsel could have declined to object to avoid the possibility that, to remedy the verdict’s repugnancy, the court might resubmit all charges to the jury, reexposing defendant to an attempted second-degree murder conviction (see CPL 310.50 [2]; People v Salemmo, 38 NY2d 357, 360-362 [1976]) That this additional conviction would not have increased defendant’s maximum sentencing exposure does not change this analysis. Sentencing exposure is not dispositive of the sentence a court ultimately imposes. Moreover, an additional felony conviction may have adverse collateral consequences and added societal stigma (see Ball v United States, 470 US 856, 865 [1985]; People v Greene, 41 NY3d 950, 951 [2024]), particularly a conviction for attempting to murder a police officer. People v Gaffney, 2026 NY Slip Op 01445, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when defense counsel’s failure to object to a repugnant verdict may be supported by legitimate strategic concerns—the avoidance of re-exposing defendant to charges of which he was acquitted, for example.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE WAS SUFFICIENT AND EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DEFENSE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirmed defendant’s conviction of reckless endangerment first degree for a series of deliberate collisions with vehicles which culminated in his deliberately crashing into an occupied house. The evidence of depraved indifference to human life was deemed sufficient and evidence of defendant’s bipolar disorder was deemed properly precluded because timely notice of the defense was not provided:

The People introduced testimony from multiple witnesses who observed defendant driving erratically, “weaving” between lanes in heavy traffic, eyes open, and with a “look of rage on his face.” Over approximately three-tenths of a mile, defendant struck three vehicles, drove through a parking lot, and ultimately crashed into a house. Defendant began this course of conduct by making a “sharp right” directly into a tow truck, causing defendant’s vehicle to “lock[]” onto a car being towed and to “hang[]” from the wheel lift of the truck. After defendant’s vehicle “shook loose” from the tow truck, defendant “sped up” and “proceeded to take off” and a short time later he crashed into the rear of a van with such force that the driver hit his head on the roof. The driver felt defendant’s vehicle “pushing” him down the road. Other witnesses provided a similar description of defendant, with his hands on the steering wheel, appearing to intentionally hit the van “again and again and again,” “pushing” it forward. Defendant next crashed into the back of a third vehicle, then side-swiped the driver’s side, causing the vehicle to “hit the curb” and to “flip[] over on its roof.” A fire hydrant pierced the roof of the car one foot from the driver’s head. Defendant “took off [] fast” from this crash, drove over a sidewalk, through a motel parking lot, and crashed directly into a house, causing it to shake upon impact. Two people were inside the house at the time and heard “screeching tires” as the car approached. Crash data from the vehicle’s air bag control module showed that the brakes were not applied in the eight seconds prior to impact with the house. From this course of conduct, and the multiple witnesses who testified about defendant’s actions and demeanor, a rational jury could have concluded that defendant was aware of the risks involved in his behavior and acted without regard for whether the drivers of those vehicles, any pedestrians who might have been in the parking lot, or the people inside the house, lived or died and that, in sum, defendant displayed depraved indifference to human life. People v Bender, 2026 NY Slip Op 01444, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the evidence required to support a jury’s conclusion that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life.

Practice Point: A defendant’s failure to give timely notice of a psychiatric defense may result in preclusion of the psychiatric evidence. Here evidence of defendant’s bipolar condition was precluded because the CPL 250.10 notice was untimely.

 

, ,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR CHARGES ASSESSED AGAINST AN EMPLOYER OR INSURANCE CARRIER FOR UNTIMELY COMPENSATION PAYMENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the Workers” Compensation Board (Board) did not have the authority to approve attorney’s fees for charges against an employer or insurance carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) section 25 for untimely compensation payments. The Board may only approve legal fees in accord with its counsel fees schedule in WCL section 24 which does not include charges under WCL section 25:

Counsel argues that the Board has long recognized that legal fees may be payable from late payment penalties, and that WCL 24 (2) … does not expressly limit the Board’s authority to approve such fees. Counsel further asserts that a claimant’s late payment award under WCL 25 is “compensation” under the WCL and thus falls within the WCL 24 (2) fee schedule. Counsel adds that permitting legal fees based on these charges furthers the WCL’s legislative purpose of promoting access to justice for injured workers by incentivizing attorneys skilled in handling WCL cases to represent claimants.

The Board counters that the plain text of WCL 24 (2) limits legal fee awards to those enumerated in the statute’s fee schedule. The Board further argues that charges assessed for late payments are not compensation but a separate award for a claimant assessed against an employer or insurance carrier. Lastly, the Board maintains that the amount of legal fees generated from an award listed on the fee schedule and the certainty that an attorney will receive those fees are sufficient incentives for attorneys to represent claimants.

We conclude that the Board does not have authority to approve legal fees based on charges assessed pursuant to WCL 25 because the text of WCL 24 (2) establishes a mandatory fee schedule that does not provide for such fees. Our interpretation does not lead to an absurd result. Indeed, the legislative history makes no mention of legal fees based on charges imposed for violations of WCL 25, let alone reflect a legislative concern that attorneys would refuse workers’ compensation cases if such fees were unavailable. Matter of Gonzalez v Northeast Parent & Child Socy., 2026 NY Slip Op 01443, CtApp 3-17-26

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED OUTSIDE THE HOME, HE WAS COERCED INTO TO LEAVING BY A SHOW OF FORCE BY THE POLICE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST VIOLATED PAYTON; WHETHER THE TENANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS VOLUNTARY WAS DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION USING THE WRONG CRITERIA; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined (1) the Fourth Department properly held that the warrantless arrest of the defendant outside the home violated Payton (445 US 573) and (2) the Fourth Department used the wrong criteria when it ruled the tenant’s consent to search the premises after defendant’s arrest was voluntary. The case was remitted to the Fourth Department for a ruling on the validity of the consent to search applying the correct criteria:

… Fifteen members of the Monroe County SWAT team and additional uniformed officers arrived at the apartment in an armored vehicle called a BearCat. The SWAT team members wore body armor and camouflage tactical clothing and carried assault rifles. The defendant did not live in the apartment but had been there for approximately 18 hours and stayed overnight the prior evening. An officer admitted that the police chose not to obtain an arrest warrant for the defendant because they wanted to interview him before his right to counsel attached.

A police investigator testified that upon seeing the defendant through the apartment window, he shouted at him to “come on out, house is surrounded . . . come out empty handed and come out with your hands up.” The defendant … exited the building, at which point he was taken into custody. Officers then entered the apartment and ordered the tenant and her cousin to “come out with [their] hands up” and lie face down with “guns to [them].” The tenant testified that she was scared; she and her cousin were handcuffed; and the police separated them and put the tenant into the back of a police patrol car, where she could not see her cousin and remained for approximately five to seven minutes. An officer obtained the tenant’s consent to search. * * *

When officers subject someone to a display of authority that induces them to exit the home under coercion, the sanctity of the home has been invaded to the same extent as if the officers had physically entered. Such a show of force violates Payton and renders an arrest unlawful … . * * *

… [T]he Appellate Division applied an incorrect legal standard in considering the validity of the tenant’s consent. People v Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, 128-130 [1976]) sets forth the factors that should be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary. Those include “whether the consenter is in custody or under arrest”; “the circumstances surrounding the custody or arrest,” including whether the person was “confronted by a large number of police agents”; whether the person was handcuffed; “the background of the consenter,” including their age and prior experience with police; “whether the consenter has been . . . evasive or uncooperative with the law enforcement authorities”; and “whether [the person] was advised of [their] right to refuse to consent” … .  The Appellate Division instead recited and applied the factors set forth in People v Borges (69 NY2d 1031, 1033 [1987]), which go to whether voluntary consent was attenuated from an illegal arrest, not whether the consent itself was voluntary. People v Shaw, 2026 NY Slip Op 00961, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: If a person is coerced by the police into leaving his home by a show of force, a warrantless arrest outside the home violates Payton and is illegal.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a consent to search obtained by the police can be considered voluntarily given.

 

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