You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP).

Defendant was convicted in town court of criminal contempt stemming from anti-drone protests at Hancock Field, an Air National Guard base. The town court proceedings were recorded electronically and no stenographer was present. The defendant filed a notice of appeal, but did not file an affidavit of errors. County Court heard the appeal and reduced defendant’s sentence from one year to six months. The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined County Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because an affidavit of errors was not filed. However, because defendant had moved for an extension of time to file the affidavit of errors should the transcript of the electronic recording be deemed insufficient (never ruled on by County Court), the matter was sent back to County Court:

​

Criminal Procedure Law § 460.10 requires an appellant to file an affidavit of errors with the criminal court in order to take an appeal from a judgment of a local criminal court if the underlying proceedings were not recorded by a court stenographer. We have already held that the filing of the affidavit of errors in this circumstance is a jurisdictional prerequisite … . …[W]e conclude that the failure to file the required affidavit of errors renders the intermediate appellate court without jurisdiction to hear the case. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 08037, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/TOWN COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/COUNTY COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TOWN COURT, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))

,

WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined whether the search of a vehicle after a street stop was valid presented a mixed question of law and fact that was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals:

​

From the dissent:

​

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … .

Accepting the facts as found by the Appellate Division and the suppression court, which are not disputed here, the People failed to adduce the minimum showing required to justify a protective search of defendant’s vehicle — namely, a substantial likelihood of the presence of a weapon and an actual and specific threat to officer safety. I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the question of whether the protective search was lawful is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable only for record support, and I would hold that the search of defendant’s vehicle was unlawful. People v Hardee, 2017 NY Slip Op 08038, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/PROTECTIVE SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined a defendant has a right to be present when, after moving to vacate the sentence because the period of post-release supervision (PRS) was not mentioned, the sentencing court imposes the original sentence without a period of PRS:

​

There is only one enumerated exception to the statute where the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor or petty offense, on motion of the defendant the court may sentence the defendant in absentia (CPL 380.40 [2]). We have also previously held that a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at sentencing, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . However, absent such a waiver — or a forfeiture of the right to be present … — … “[t]here is no statutory basis for [a] [futility] exception” … .

Here, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no reason to remand the case because [defendant] was not adversely affected by his re-imposed sentence, citing People v Covington(88 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2011]), and People v Mills (117 AD3d at 1556). The majority in Mills cited CPL 470.15 [1] for the proposition that the Appellate Division cannot consider a sentence that did not “adversely affect[] the appellant.” CPL 470.15 (1) says, “Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” Here, as there was no voluntary waiver, [defendant’s] absence from the sentencing proceeding was in itself, under our precedents, an error as it constitutes a violation of his right under CPL 380.40. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. People v Estremera, 2017 NY Slip Op 08036, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision reversing the appellate division, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant retail store in this slip and fall case. The facts of the case were not discussed:

​

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence … . Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence.  Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06479, CtApp 9-14-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP))/SLIP AND FALL (SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP))

,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the People had demonstrated the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search, despite the expectation contraband would be found. The defendant’s argument the search was a ruse depended upon the credibility of the police witnesses, a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be reached by the Court of Appeals:

​

“[T]he People met their burden of establishing that the [inventory] search was in accordance with procedure and resulted in a meaningful inventory list” and that the primary objectives of the search were to preserve the property located inside the vehicle and to protect police from a claim of lost property … . The fact that the officers knew that contraband might be recovered does “not invalidate the entire search” … . “The inventory here, while not a model, was sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum” … .

The determinations of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the officers and whether the inventory search was a ruse to look for contraband present mixed questions of law and fact … . A mixed question is presented when “the facts are disputed, where credibility is at issue or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference[s] to be drawn” … . Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the primary purpose of the search was to inventory the property located in the vehicle, that issue is beyond further review by this Court … . People v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 06415, CtApp 9-12-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/INVENTORY SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (COURT OF APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, INVENTORY SEARCH, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

,

STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion with three extensive concurring opinions, determined the statutes criminalizing assisted suicide are constitutional in that they do not violate the due process or equal protection clauses.

​

Plaintiffs ask us to declare a constitutional right to “aid-in-dying,” which they define (and we refer to herein) as the right of a mentally competent and terminally ill person to obtain a prescription for a lethal dosage of drugs from a physician, to be taken at some point to cause death. Although New York has long recognized a competent adult’s right to forgo life-saving medical care, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that an individual has a fundamental constitutional right to aid-in-dying as they define it. We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that the State’s prohibition on assisted suicide is not rationally related to legitimate state interests .. . . * * *

​

Our State’s equal protection guarantees are coextensive with the rights protected under the federal Equal Protection Clause … . In Vacco v Quill, the United States Supreme Court held that New York State’s laws banning assisted suicide do not unconstitutionally distinguish between individuals (521 US 793, 797 [1997]). As the Court explained, “[e]veryone, regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. Generally, laws that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection” … . The Supreme Court has not retreated from that conclusion, and we see no reason to hold otherwise. * * *

​

… [T]he State pursues a legitimate purpose in guarding against the risks of mistake and abuse. The State may rationally seek to prevent the distribution of prescriptions for lethal dosages of drugs that could, upon fulfillment, be deliberately or accidentally misused. The State also has a significant interest in preserving life and preventing suicide, a serious public health problem … . As summarized by the Supreme Court, the State’s interests in prohibiting assisted suicide include: “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physicians’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia” … . These legitimate and important State interests further “satisfy the constitutional requirement that a legislative classification bear a rational relation to some legitimate end” … . Myers v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06412, CtApp 9-7-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/SUICIDE (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff had constructed a ramp out of greasy planks to move from the roof to a scaffold. Plaintiff slipped and fell from the ramp:

We agree with the Appellate Division that the fall of … plaintiff was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection. We further conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must … , we conclude that plaintiff’s foreman arguably provided conflicting accounts of whether plaintiff had “adequate safety devices available,” whether “he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them,” whether “he chose for no good reason not to do so,” and whether “had he not made that choice he would not have been injured” … . Valente v Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06400, CtApp 9-5-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP))

,

PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the Working Families Party’s petition to add NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio as a mayoral candidate in a primary election was properly denied for failure to name the party’s Executive Board as a necessary party:

Necessary parties are those “who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action” (CPLR 1001[a]). Appellants rely on Matter of O’Brien v Seneca County Bd. of Elections (22 AD3d 1036, 1036 [4th Dept 2005]) and Matter of Seaman v Bird (176 AD2d 1061, 1062 [3d Dept 1991]), to argue that, because complete relief could be obtained from the Board of Elections, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party is not a necessary party. Their reliance is misplaced. Here, where petitioners assert that the Executive Board’s certificate of authorization was invalid under Election Law § 6-120, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party was a necessary party because a judgment on this issue could inequitably affect its interests. To the extent that there are other decisions to the contrary, they should not be followed. Matter of Morgan v de Blasio, 2017 NY Slip Op 06399, CtApp 8-31-17

ELECTION LAW (PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ELECTION LAW, PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP))

,

NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PROOF OF A FACT OTHER THAN A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reaffirmed its prior holdings finding New York’s persistent felony offender sentencing scheme constitutional:

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee criminal defendants in state courts “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” To satisfy that right, the People must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Among those elements is any fact — other than one admitted by the defendant or involving the mere fact of a prior felony conviction … — that has the effect of increasing the prescribed range of penalties to which a defendant is exposed … . …

… [W]e have held that the [persistent felony offender] statute … exposes defendants to an enhanced sentencing range based only on the existence of two prior felony convictions … . As we have consistently explained, the existence of those prior convictions — each the result of either a guilty plea or a jury verdict — is the “sole determinant of whether a defendant is subject to recidivist sentencing as a persistent felony offender” … . Only after the existence of those prior convictions is established and the maximum permissible sentence raised does Supreme Court have “the discretion to choose the appropriate sentence within a sentencing range prescribed by statute” … .

“The court’s opinion is, of course, subject to appellate review, as is any exercise of discretion. The Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” and reduce it in the interest of justice to a sentence within the statutory range fixed by the legislature for the crime of conviction, without regard to the persistent felony offender enhancement … . “In this way, the Appellate Division can and should mitigate inappropriately severe applications of the statute” … .

In other words, the statute mandates a two-part process: in step one, the court adjudicates the defendant a persistent felony offender if the necessary and sufficient fact of the two prior convictions is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby exposing him to the sentencing range applicable to such offenders; in step two, it evaluates what sentence is warranted and sets forth an explanation of its opinion on that question for the record … . People v Prindle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05267, CtApp 6-29-17

 

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the characterization of the DNA evidence by the prosecutor was not improper, and defense counsel’s failure to object to the characterization did not constitute ineffective assistance:

The People’s forensic expert gave statistical testimony regarding the likelihood (“1.661 quadrillion times more likely”) that defendant and his deceased wife, rather than two randomly selected individuals, were contributors to a DNA mixture profile drawn from a blood stain on defendant’s sweatshirt. The prosecutor, during his summation, summarized this testimony by telling the jury that the victim’s DNA was “on” defendant’s sweatshirt. Defense counsel’s failure to object to this characterization did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The expert testimony regarding the “likelihood ratio” here contrasts with the testimony at issue in People v Wright (25 NY3d 769 [2015]), which “only indicated that defendant could not be excluded from the pool of male DNA contributors, and . . . provided no statistical comparison to measure the significance of those results” … . Nor did counsel’s other alleged errors of representation, either individually or collectively, deprive defendant of meaningful representation. People v Ramsaran, 2017 NY Slip Op 05268, CtApp 6-29-17

 

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