You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

THE AMENDMENT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE’S COVERAGE TO TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS JOINTLY CHARGED WITH CRIMES OR VIOLATIONS IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the amendment to the speedy trial statute (CPL 30.30 (1) (e)) which made the statutory time-limits applicable to traffic infractions jointly charged with crimes or violations should not be applied retroactively. The amendment went into effect while defendant’s appeal to the Appellate Term was pending. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument (which jointly charged misdemeanors and traffic infractions) on speedy-trial grounds should not have been granted by the Appellate Term:

Defendant was charged in 2014 in a single accusatory instrument with three misdemeanor counts and three traffic infractions under various sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Approximately 17 months later, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.30. The court denied the motion, concluding that the statute did not apply to jointly charged traffic infractions and that the People did not exceed the 90-day statutory time limit applicable to the misdemeanor counts. Thereafter, a jury convicted defendant of two misdemeanors and two infractions and acquitted him of the remaining counts. …

The Appellate Term granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument, including the traffic infractions, concluding that the People exceeded the statutory time limit to state their readiness for trial on the misdemeanor counts and that the amendment applied retroactively … . * * *

… [B]ecause the amended statute was not in effect when the criminal action against defendant was commenced, CPL 30.30 (1) (e) has no application to defendant’s direct appeal from that judgment of conviction. People v Galindo, 2022 NY Slip Op 03928, Ct App 6-16-22

Practice Point: The amendment to the speedy trial statute which extended the statute’s coverage to include traffic infractions jointly charged with crimes or violations is not to be applied retroactively. Here the amendment became effective while defendant’s appeal to the Appellate Term was pending. The Appellate Term should not have ruled the amendment applied to the defendant’s accusatory instrument, which jointly charged misdemeanors and traffic infractions.

 

,

ONLY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CPLR 205 (A) WHICH ALLOWS RE-COMMENCEMENT OF A LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A DISMISSAL WHICH WAS NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff, HSBC, could not take advantage of the six-month extension for commencing an action after a dismissal which was not on the merits (CPLR 205(a)) because HSBC was not the original plaintiff:

When a timely-commenced action has been dismissed on certain non-merits grounds, CPLR 205 (a) allows “the plaintiff” in that action “or, if the plaintiff dies,” the “executor or administrator” of the plaintiff’s estate, six months to commence a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence. The new action will be deemed timely based on the commencement of the prior action. Here, after the dismissal of a prior action brought by two certificateholders … —and after the statute of limitations expired—plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as trustee of a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trust, commenced this action against the sponsor, invoking CPLR 205 (a). Because HSBC was not “the original plaintiff” in the prior dismissed action … , we agree with the courts below that HSBC could not invoke CPLR 205 (a) to avoid dismissal of this time-barred claim … .* * *

HSBC is not “the plaintiff” in the prior action and the benefit of CPLR 205 (a) is unavailable to save its untimely complaint. … [T]his conclusion is consistent with the public policy underpinning the savings statute. CPLR 205 (a) is a remedial statute that … is “‘designed to insure to the diligent suitor'” an opportunity to have a claim heard on the merits … when the suitor has “initiated a suit in time” … but the claim was dismissed on some technical, non-merits-based ground. While the savings statute undoubtedly has a “broad and liberal purpose” … to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … , “[t]he important consideration is that, by invoking judicial aid [in the first action], a litigant gives timely notice to [the] adversary of a present purpose to maintain [its] rights before the courts” … . Where, as here, the litigant commencing the second action is not the original plaintiff, application of CPLR 205 (a) would protect the rights of a dilatory—not a diligent—suitor. By failing to bring the action within the statute of limitations, HSBC signaled that it had no intention to pursue its claims in court. CPLR 205 (a) does not apply and HSBC’s failure to commence an action within the statute of limitations is fatal. ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03927, CtApp 6-16-22

Practice Point: Only the original plaintiff can take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) which allows re-commencement of a lawsuit within six months of a dismissal which was not on the merits.

 

,

THE VALIDITY OF A GUILTY PLEA IS NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AFTER THE AFFIRMANCE OF A LEGAL SENTENCE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION; WHERE THE SENTENCE IS LEGAL, AN EXCESSIVE-SENTENCE CLAIM IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined (1) the validity of a guilty plea is not properly raised in the Court of Appeals after the appellate division has affirmed the defendant’s legal sentence, and (2) where a sentence is legal, an excessive-sentence claim is beyond the scope of the Court of Appeals:

Defendant’s challenge to the validity of his plea is not properly raised on this appeal from an Appellate Division order affirming a sentence, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 670.11 (b) (see CPL 450.30 [1]; 470.35 [1]; People v Pagan, 19 NY3d 368, 370-371 [2012]). Defendant’s sentence—an authorized prison term with post-release supervision—is not illegal, and any excessive sentence claim is beyond the scope of this Court’s review (see People v Veale, 78 NY2d 1022, 1023-1024 [1991]). The many dissenting opinions cited by the dissent provide no support for a different result (see dissenting op at 6, 8-11). People v Laboriel, 2022 NY Slip Op 03863, CtApp 6-14-22

Practice Point: The affirmance of a legal sentence by the appellate division does not give the Court of Appeals the authority to review the validity of a guilty plea.

Practice Point: If a sentence is legal, an excessive-sentence claim is beyond the scope of the Court of Appeals.

 

,

HAPPY, AN ELEPHANT IN THE BRONX ZOO, IS NOT A “PERSON” ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HAPPY’S TRANSFER TO AN ELEPHANT SANCTUARY; TWO DISSENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions, determined an elephant at the Bronx Zoo (Happy) was not entitled to the protection of a writ of habeas corpus. The petition sought Happy’s transfer from the zoo to an elephant sanctuary:

For centuries, the common law writ of habeas corpus has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by providing a means to secure release from illegal custody. The question before us on this appeal is whether petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project may seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of Happy, an elephant residing at the Bronx Zoo, in order to secure her transfer to an elephant sanctuary. Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a “person” subjected to illegal detention. Thus, while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the courts below properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus … . Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Breheny, 2022 NY Slip Op 03859, CtApp 6-14-22

Practice Point: So far, sentient non-humans (like Happy, an elephant in the Bronx Zoo) are not entitled to the protection against “illegal custody” afforded by a writ of habeas corpus.

 

,

EXCLUDING EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN IMPORTANT PROSECUTION-WITNESS’S ACCOUNT OF HIS ACTIONS RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, AND THREE 911 CALLS WHICH QUALIFIED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division in this murder case, determined evidentiary rulings excluding evidence which impeached an important witness and 911 calls admissible as present sense impressions deprived defendant of his right to present a defense. R.M. was a crucial prosecution witness. R.M. claimed to have been with his girlfriend, R.J. right up until the time of the shooting. But R.J. would have testified she was not with R.M. that day:

R.J.’s proffered testimony was probative of R.M.’s ability to observe and recall details of the shooting. At trial, R.M. testified that he was with R.J. until “seconds” before he witnessed the shooting, and that he was at the scene to walk R.J. home. Upon the People’s questioning, R.M. explained in detail his relationship with R.J., resulting in many pages of testimony as to where he met up with her that evening, the amount of time they spent together, and when they parted ways. This testimony, introduced and relied upon by the People, made R.J. an integral part of R.M.’s account of why he was in a position to witness the shooting, and placed her with him mere seconds before it occurred. Since the People’s own theory of the case placed R.J. on the scene the instant before the shooting, her testimony cannot be characterized as collateral. …

The court also erred in excluding the three 911 calls. The calls were admissible as present sense impressions. The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements that are “(1) made by a person perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward” and “(2) corroborated by independent evidence establishing the reliability of the contents of the statement” … . “[D]escriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” are “deemed reliable . . . because the contemporaneity of the communication minimizes the opportunity for calculated misstatement as well as the risk of inaccuracy from faulty memory” … . People v Deverow, 2022 NY Slip Op 03362, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here an important prosecution witness claimed he was with his girlfriend right up until seconds before the shooting he allegedly witnessed. The girlfriend’s testimony that she was not with the witness that day should not have been excluded as collateral. In addition, three 911 calls which qualified as present sense impressions should not have been excluded. The Court of Appeals held these evidentiary errors deprived defendant of his right to put on a defense.

 

, ,

ONLY AN EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDEMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105 COULD REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFERENCES TO THE MORTGAGE DEBT IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TAX RETURNS PROVIDED TO THE MORTGAGOR BY THE MORTGAGEE WERE NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the statute of limitations on the underlying foreclosure action was not tolled based upon acknowledgments of the mortgage debt in financial statements and tax returns. Rather, pursuant to General Obligations Law 17-105, only and express promise to pay the debt would revive an otherwise expired statute of limitations:

The primary question presented by this appeal is which section of article 17 of the General Obligations Law governs the tolling or revival of the statute of limitations period in an action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1501 (4). RPAPL § 1501 (4) allows a party to cancel a mortgage where the limitations period for commencing a foreclosure action has expired. We hold that General Obligations Law section 17-105, not section 17-101, governs whether the statute of limitations has been tolled or revived in such an action. * * *

Under General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1), the Partnership’s (mortgagee’s) actions in this case could only toll or revive the statute of limitations for the Council (mortgagor) to bring a foreclosure action if the Partnership made an “express” “promise to pay the mortgage debt.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the Partnership’s delivery of its financial statements and tax returns to Council did not meet the requirements of section 17-105 (1) because they were not express promises to pay the mortgage debt (189 AD3d at 28).  Batavia Townhouses, Ltd. v Council of Churches Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03361, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here references to the mortgage debt in financial statements and tax returns provided to the mortgagor by the mortgagee did not revive or toll the statute of limitations on the underlying foreclosure action. Pursuant to General Obligations Law 17-105, only an express acknowledgement of the mortgage would revive the action.

 

,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH “FRAUDULENT ACCOSTING” WAS FACIALLY SUFFICIENT; IT WAS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT SPOKE FIRST TO PERSONS PASSING AROUND HIM ON THE SIDEWALK ASKING FOR DONATIONS FOR THE HOMELESS; THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE DEFENDANT WAS AGGRESSIVE OR PERSISTENT OR TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the accusatory instrument charging defendant with “fraudulent accosting” was facially sufficient. Defendant set up a couple of milk crates as a table in the sidewalk and asked people for donations to the homeless as they walked around the table. Defendant unsuccessfully argued the term “accost” required an element of aggressiveness or persistence directed toward an individual:

A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he or she “accosts a person in a public space with intent to defraud him of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game” (Penal Law § 165.30 [1]). * * *

During the relevant period in 1952, when the legislature created the offense of fraudulent accosting … contemporary dictionaries defined “accost” to mean either to “approach,” to “speak to first,” or to “address” … .No dictionary cited from the relevant time period limits the term to an aggressive or persistent physical approach … . People v Mitchell, 2022 NY Slip Op 03360, Ct App 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here, to determine the meaning of the word “accost” as used in the “fraudulent accosting” statute, the Court of Appeals referred only to definitions of the word in dictionaries extant in 1952, when the statute was enacted. and ignored more recent definitions.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONVICTION OF THE B MISDEMEANORS WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WOULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the defendant did not demonstrate the misdemeanors with which he was charged triggered a right to a jury trial because conviction would result in deportation:

Defendant was originally charged with public lewdness, two counts of forcible touching, and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree after police officers observed him masturbating on a subway platform and pressing himself against two women on a subway car. The People thereafter filed a prosecutor’s information reducing the two class A misdemeanor charges of forcible touching to attempted forcible touching, so that the top charges against defendant were Class B misdemeanors obviating his right to a jury trial under state statute … . After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of public lewdness and acquitted of all other charges. …

While the Appellate Term first improperly conducted the deportability analysis based only on the crime of conviction, that court went on to correctly analyze defendant’s deportability based on all the charges he faced (see Suazo, 32 NY3d at 508). It remained, however, “the defendant’s burden to overcome the presumption that the crime charged is petty and establish a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial” (id. at 507). … [D]efendant’s conclusory allegation that he was deportable if convicted “on any of the charged B misdemeanors,” supported by a bare citation to 8 USC § 1227 (a) (2) (A) (ii), under which an alien is deportable if “convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct,” was insufficient to establish his right to a jury trial. People v Garcia, 2022 NY Slip Op 03359, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Generally B misdemeanors do not warrant a jury, as opposed to a bench, trial. However, if conviction will result in deportation, the defendant has a right to a jury trial. Here the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not demonstrate conviction of the B misdemeanors with which he was charged triggered deportation.

 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, REVERSED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT DURING A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES AND FACTS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without explanation, reversed the Fourth Department which had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground defendant was not present during a side bar conference concerning the bias of a prospective juror: People v McKenzie-Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 03308, CtApp 5-19-22

From the Fourth Department Decision (Reversed Without Explanation by the Court of Appeals):

A … prospective juror was peremptorily excused by defendant’s counsel, however, and, during a sidebar conference at which defendant was not present, that juror was questioned “to search out [her] bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” (Antommarchi, 80 NY2d at 250). Consequently, we conclude that, “absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by defendant of his right to be present at that sidebar conference, his conviction cannot stand” … . The only evidence in the record concerning a waiver consists of a conversation between the court, defendant’s counsel and codefendant’s counsel that occurred after the prospective juror was excused, in which codefendant’s counsel indicated that he had just discussed with codefendant the right to approach the bench during such conferences, and defendant’s counsel merely assented. Inasmuch as the discussion was vague and prospective, and there is no indication that defendant or defendant’s counsel were waiving defendant’s Antommarchi rights retrospectively, that conversation is insufficient to establish that defendant waived those rights concerning the questioning of the prospective juror at issue here. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. People v Mckenzie-Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05653, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

Practice Point: The Fourth Department had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground the defendant was not present at a sidebar conference when the bias of a prospective juror was discussed. Here the Court of Appeals reversed without explanation and sent the case back to the Fourth Department for consideration of other issues raised in the appeal.

 

,

HERE SCREENSHOTS OF TEXT MESSAGES WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED FROM THE VICTIM’S PHONE WERE SUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTICATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE, EVEN IF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED; THE MESSAGES OF A SEXUAL NATURE ALLEGEDLY WERE SENT BY THE DEFENDANT, A VOLLEY BALL COACH, TO THE VICTIM, A 15-YEAR-OLD PLAYER ON THE TEAM (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting in evidence screen shots of text messages of a sexual nature allegedly sent by the defendant, a high-school volley ball coach, to the 15-year-old victim, a player on the team. The victim had deleted the messages, but her boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages and those screenshots were allowed in evidence. On appeal the Second Department reversed the conviction on the ground that the screenshots had not been properly authenticated:

“[T]echnologically generated documentation [is] ordinarily admissible under standard evidentiary rubrics” and “this type of ruling may be disturbed by this Court only when no legal foundation has been proffered or when an abuse of discretion as a matter of law is demonstrated” … . This Court recently held that for digital photographs, like traditional photographs, “the proper foundation [may] be established through testimony that the photograph accurately represents the subject matter depicted” … . We reiterated that “[r]arely is it required that the identity and accuracy of a photograph be proved by the photographer” … . which would be the boyfriend here. Rather, “any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify” the photograph “or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered” … .

Here, the testimony of the victim—a participant in and witness to the conversations with defendant—sufficed to authenticate the screenshots. She testified that all of the screenshots offered by the People fairly and accurately represented text messages sent to and from defendant’s phone. The boyfriend also identified the screenshots as the same ones he took from the victim’s phone on November 7. Telephone records of the call detail information for defendant’s subscriber number corroborated that defendant sent the victim numerous text messages during the relevant time period. Moreover, even if we were to credit defendant’s argument that the best evidence rule applies in this context, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the screenshots. People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03307, CtApp 5-19-22

Practice Point: Text messages of a sexual nature were allegedly sent by the defendant, a volley ball coach, to a 15-year-old player on the team. The original messages were deleted, but the victim’s boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages. The screenshots were deemed authenticated and admitted by the trial court. The Second Department reversed, applying the best evidence rule. The Court of Appeals reversed the Second Department, finding that, even if the best evidence rule applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the screenshots had been sufficiently authenticated.

 

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