You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the element of robbery first degree which requires the display of what appears to be a firearm. The defendant threatened to shoot the teller and, at some point in time, one of his hands was under his hoodie.  The defendant was quickly apprehended and no firearm was found:

We reject defendant’s assumption that the timing of the moment at which the defendant places a hand under his clothing is dispositive of the legal sufficiency analysis. A victim may reasonably believe that a gun is being used, on the basis of conduct that makes it appear that the defendant is holding a gun, regardless of whether the defendant makes a movement while addressing the victim or keeps his hand concealed throughout the encounter in a manner and location suggesting the presence of a gun. Whether a defendant displays what appears to be a firearm does not depend on when precisely the defendant begins the display, provided it occurs “in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom” (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 02362, CtApp 3-28-17

 

,

EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED PRIOR IDENTICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW INTENT, MOTIVE, OR AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined evidence of an alleged prior sexual assault, identical to the charged offense, should not have been admitted to show intent or motive, or as background evidence:

Here, … the victim’s testimony as to the alleged prior sexual abuse was not necessary to show the nature of the relationship between her and defendant or to “sort out ambiguous but material facts” … . The victim testified as to her relationship with defendant, stating that they are relatives who lived, at certain times, in the same home and that on the night of the indicted sexual assault, she and her boyfriend went to defendant’s home to spend time together and drink alcohol. The introduction of the prior alleged assault was not necessary to clarify their relationship or to establish a narrative of the relevant events.

Further, the evidence of the uncharged crime was not admissible to show intent. The intent here — sexual gratification — can be inferred from the act. * * *

To the extent the evidence was admissible to show defendant’s motive in getting the victim drunk, the evidence was highly prejudicial, as it showed that defendant had allegedly engaged in the exact same behavior on a prior occasion with the same victim — classic propensity evidence. The prejudicial nature of the Molineux evidence far outweighed any probative value that may be attributed to it. People v Leonard, 2017 NY Slip Op 02359, CtApp 3-28-17

 

,

POSSESSION OF COCAINE CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE COCAINE ITSELF AS EVIDENCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, noted that possession of cocaine can be proven without submitting the cocaine itself as evidence:

Although the People did not recover or introduce any of the cocaine that defendant was charged with possessing, “direct evidence in the form of contraband or other physical evidence is not the only adequate proof” (People v Samuels , 99 NY2d 20, 24 [2002]). The People presented sufficient evidence in the form of, among other things, defendant’s intercepted phone calls replete with drug-related conversations, visual surveillance, and the testimony of cooperating witnesses. People v Whitehead, 2017 NY Slip Op 02358, CtApp 3-28-17

 

, ,

STATE’S RULING SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT NOT FINAL, ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CHALLENGING RULING PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Court of Appeals determined the petitioner school district could not bring an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the state’s finding that the district’s dispute resolution practices for placing students with disabilities violated federal (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) and state law because the state’s decision was not final:

In 2012, the State found that the District’s dispute resolution practices violated federal and state law and directed the District to take corrective action. Although the State informed the District that failure to comply could result in further enforcement actions, including withholding federal funds, the State did not make a final decision to withhold funds.

A proceeding under CPLR article 78 “shall not be used to challenge a determination which is not final or can be adequately reviewed by appeal to a court or to some other body or officer” … . Likewise, this Court has recognized that “[t]o challenge an administrative determination, the agency action must be final and binding upon the petitioner” … . In addition, in the absence of injury, there is no standing to bring an article 78 proceeding … .

Assuming, without deciding, that a school district may bring an article 78 proceeding to challenge a final determination by the State under the IDEA, here, the State has not made a final determination, the District has not shown that it has exhausted its administrative remedies, and the District is unable to articulate any actual, concrete injury that it has suffered at this juncture. Accordingly, the District’s petition was properly dismissed. Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 2017 NY Slip Op 02360, CtApp 3-28-17

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion that defendant consented to the entry and search of his home. The motion to suppress, therefore, should have been granted. The decision does not discuss the facts and indicates the reasoning of the Appellate Division dissent was followed. People v Freeman, 2017 NY Slip Op 02090, CtApp 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals determined the issue whether defendant made an unequivocal request for counsel presented a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be heard by the Court of Appeals. People v Slocum, 2017 NY Slip Op 02089, CtApp 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility, JCAP, owed no duty of care to plaintiff who was assaulted by Velentzas, who had just been dismissed from the treatment program for violation of the program’s rules. The facility’s  motion for summary judgment, therefore, should have been granted:

JCAP had some control or authority over its residents while they remained participants of the program. But, JCAP residents could leave the facility and terminate their participation in the program against medical advice. Although voluntary departure from the program would trigger adverse legal consequences — namely, dismissal from the TASC program and potential prosecution in criminal court for the charges against them — residents could leave at any time. In short, facilities like JCAP cannot force a participant to remain on the premises. These facilities are not prisons; JCAP’s control over Velentzas was, “in fact entirely dependent upon [his] willingness to comply with and carry out” its directives … . In the absence of the authority to prevent a participant from leaving, it follows that, when a participant is discharged from JCAP for violating facility rules, or withdraws from the program, he or she is no longer under the facility’s control. Oddo v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01256, CtApp 2-16-17

NEGLGENCE (SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)

,

TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The Court of Appeals determined the testimony of an officer (Mercado) who was present throughout the DWI breathalyzer test process administered by another officer (Harriman) did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Harriman had retired and moved out of state by the time of defendant’s trial:

The only step in the testing process that the Appellate Term found Mercado did not personally perform or observe, and the sole stated basis for that court finding a Confrontation Clause violation, was verification of the simulator solution temperature as displayed on the machine. Inasmuch as the written 13-step checklist completed by Harriman was not admitted into evidence, no testimonial statement by a nontestifying witness concerning the temperature — or any aspect of the testing procedure — was used against defendant. Thus, any argument as to Mercado’s failure to observe the temperature reading would merely relate to whether there was a proper foundation for his testimony, which would not implicate a Confrontation Clause violation … . However, to the extent that the Appellate Term based its decision on the failure of an “essential” step in the testing procedure, the trial record contradicts that court’s conclusion that there was an absence of evidence that the machine will shut itself down and fail to perform the test if the temperature is outside the proper range … . * * *

Mercado observed Harriman perform all of the steps on the checklist and saw the breathalyzer machine print out the results. Based upon his personal observations, Mercado — as a trained and certified operator who was present for the entire testing protocol — was a suitable witness to testify about the testing procedure and results in defendant’s test. Inasmuch as Mercado testified as to his own observations, not as a surrogate for Harriman, there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Any alleged irregularities concerning the testing procedure would relate to the weight of Mercado’s testimony, not its admissibility … . People v Hao Lin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DWI, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (BREATHALYZER, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/BREATHALYZER (DWI, (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision that does not explain the relevant facts, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. People v Maldonado, 2017 NY Slip Op 01254, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)

,

HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined a huge construction crane destroyed during Superstorm Sandy was subject to the “contractor’s tools exclusion” in the applicable policy:

… [W]e conclude that there is no coverage for that loss under the policy because any coverage afforded by that contract in the first instance is defeated by the contractor’s tools exclusion. That exclusion provides that “[t]h[e] Policy does not insure against loss or damage to . . . Contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment including spare parts and accessories, whether owned, loaned, borrowed, hired or leased, and property of a similar nature not destined to become a permanent part of the INSURED PROJECT*, unless specifically endorsed to the Policy.”

“‘[B]efore an insurance company is permitted to avoid policy coverage, it must satisfy the burden which it bears of establishing that the exclusions or exemptions apply in the particular case, and that they are subject to no other reasonable interpretation'” . [Plaintiff] Extell, in particular, contends that defendants cannot have met that burden here because the crane is not a “tool” or “equipment” within the meaning of the contractor’s tools exclusion. The subject exclusion, however, also defeats coverage for “machinery,” and the crane falls squarely within this definition of that term. “Machinery” means, among other things, “machines in general or as a functioning unit,” and “machine” is defined as “a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task” … . Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01141, CtApp 2-14-17

INSURANCE LAW (HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/CRANES (INSURANCE LAW, (HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)

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