You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S USE OF A RAZOR BLADE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ACQUITTAL ON THE RELATED “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” CHARGES IN THE FIRST TRIAL; ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not prohibit testimony in defendant's second trial that the defendant threatened to cut a victim's throat with a razor blade, despite the fact defendant was acquitted of charges involving the use of a dangerous instrument in the first trial. The court concluded that the witness-victims could not give truthful testimony about the defendant's actions without reference to the razor blade. Therefore, the collateral estoppel doctrine, under the facts of this case, was properly not applied. The court went on to find that defense counsel's request to withdraw or her motion for a mistrial should have been granted. Defense counsel's statements at arraignment were used to impeach the defendant's version of events. After defense counsel reviewed her notes, she informed the court that her statements at arraignment were incorrect and that defendant's testimony at trial matched what he had told her before arraignment. Under these circumstances, the witness-advocate rule required that defense counsel withdraw or that a mistrial be declared. Defendant's conviction was therefore reversed:

… [T]he rigid application of collateral estoppel sometimes gives way to society's interest in ensuring the correctness of criminal prosecutions … . Thus, … if it becomes apparent … that collateral estoppel “cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied” …. . * * *

[Re: the use of defense counsel's erroneous statement to impeach defendant:] The situation went from bad to worse when it became clear that the only way for defense counsel to rehabilitate her client's credibility was to impugn her own, moments before she would argue for her client's innocence in summation. Any way you look at it, defense counsel had no choice but to withdraw. In these unusual circumstances, we hold that the trial court should have granted counsel's request to withdraw or declared a mistrial. People v Ortiz, 2015 NY Slip Op 09233, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE NOT APPLIED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (UNDER THE FACTS, DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASE)/ATTORNEYS (ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED)/ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL: A PREREQUISITE FOR CORAM NOBIS RELIEF IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a partial dissent, determined that the applications for a writ of coram nobis in the two cases before the court were properly denied. The court found that the defendants were aware of their right to appeal but had not requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal. The cases, therefore, were factually distinct from cases where the defendants requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal but the attorneys failed to do so:

In People v Syville (15 NY3d 391), this Court considered whether defendants may be afforded an opportunity to file a notice of appeal, even beyond the one year and 30 days permitted under the CPL. In Syville, the defendants had made timely requests to their attorneys to file a notice of appeal on their behalf but their attorneys failed to comply. We held that when an attorney has failed to comply with a timely request for the filing of a notice of appeal and the defendant demonstrates that the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one-year period, the time limit imposed in CPL 460.30 should not categorically bar an appellate court from considering a coram nobis application to pursue an untimely appeal. Thus, coram nobis relief is not just another stop on a continuum of opportunities for a defendant to seek appellate relief. Rather, it is extraordinary relief only to be provided in “rare cases” “when a right to appeal was extinguished ‘due solely to the unconstitutionally deficient performance of counsel'” … . * * *

… [N]either defendant claims that he requested that his attorney file a notice of appeal and that his attorney failed to comply with that request. Rather, they claim that counsel did not advise them of the right to appeal and had defendants known about their right to appeal, they would have requested one. However, in both appeals, the only evidence proffered in support of the contention that defendants were not apprised of their appellate rights are self-serving affidavits. The records as a whole reveal that defendants knew about their right to appeal. Thus, to grant defendants relief here would be to broaden the Syville rule to apply to any case where a notice of appeal had not been filed within one year and 30 days of conviction. Such a rule would abrogate CPL 460.30. Simply put, defendants here failed to show that their attorneys were unconstitutionally ineffective and therefore they are not entitled to the relief they seek. People v Rosario, 2015 NY Slip Op 09230, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/CORAM NOBIS (NO RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST ATTORNEY TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

,

SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Stein (in which Judge Rivera concurred), determined the record supported a finding that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve electronic evidence and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of the relevance of the lost evidence and a sanction, if deemed appropriate. The court noted that, even where spoliation is the result of simple negligence, an adverse inference jury instruction may be appropriate. The court explained the applicable law as follows:

A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” and “that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . Where the evidence is determined to have been intentionally or wilfully destroyed, the relevancy of the destroyed documents is presumed … . On the other hand, if the evidence is determined to have been negligently destroyed, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must establish that the destroyed documents were relevant to the party’s claim or defense … .

On this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the Appellate Division erred in reversing an order of Supreme Court that imposed a spoliation sanction on the defendants. We hold that it did, and remand the matter to the trial court for a determination as to whether the evidence, which the Appellate Division found to be negligently destroyed, was relevant to the claims asserted against defendants and for the imposition of an appropriate sanction, should the trial court deem, in its discretion, that a sanction is warranted. * * *

… [A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed … . Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 09187, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ADVERSE INFERENCE, NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

,

A CONTRACTUAL NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES AN OTHERWISE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATE’S LAW.

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Rivera concurred), the Court of Appeals determined the New York choice of law provision in decedent's retirement and death benefit plans required the application of New York law, even though, under the facts, an otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision required the application of Colorado law.  Decedent was enrolled in both retirement and death benefit plans. He made his wife the beneficiary of the plans and his wife's father the contingent beneficiary. Decedent and his wife divorced and decedent died in Colorado. If the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision applied, the effect of the divorce would be determined by Colorado law (where decedent died). Under Colorado law, the divorce removed both decedent's wife and her father as beneficiaries of the plans. Under New York law only the wife was removed and her father remained.  The choice of law provision in the retirement and death benefit plans was deemed to supersede the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision (which would have required analysis under Colorado law):

… [W]e should apply the most reasonable interpretation of the contract language that effectuates the parties' intended and expressed choice of law … . To do otherwise — by applying New York's statutory conflict-of-laws principles, even if doing so results in the application of the substantive law of another state — would contravene the primary purpose of including a choice-of-law provision in a contract — namely, to avoid a conflict-of-laws analysis and its associated time and expense. Such an interpretation would also interfere with, and ignore, the parties' intent, contrary to the basic tenets of contract interpretation. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v Snow, 2015 NY Slip Op 09186, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISON)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACTUAL PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY PROVISION)/CONFLICT OF LAWS (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)

INFORMATION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; THE APPEARANCE OF BURNT RESIDUE IN A GLASS PIPE, TOGETHER WITH ALLEGATIONS THE OFFICER HAD THE REQUISITE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE SUFFICIENT.

The Court of Appeals determined the heightened requirements for a misdemeanor information were met by the information charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance seventh degree:

Here, …  the information was facially sufficient because it contained adequate allegations that the officer had the requisite training and experience to recognize the substance in defendant's possession as a controlled substance and that the officer reached his conclusion about the nature of the substance based on its appearance and placement within a favored apparatus of drug users, a glass pipe.

That the substance at issue here was a burnt residue does not dictate a different result. …[A]n information's description of the characteristics of a substance combined with its account of an officer's training in identifying such substances, the packaging of such substance and the presence of drug paraphernalia, can support the inference that the officer properly recognized the substance as a controlled substance. People v Smalls, 2015 NY Slip Op 09188, CtApp 12-15-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION (SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION)

,

Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner’s Standing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals clarified the nature of the standing requirement for contesting municipal rulings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village of Painted Post had approved the sale of municipal water to a company which operates gas wells in Pennsylvania. As part of that project, construction of a railroad loading facility was approved. A resident of the village, Martin, was one of the petitioners seeking the annulment of the Village’s SEQRA rulings. Martin, who lives near the rail facility, alleged the noise from the facility was different in degree from that experienced by the general public (thus according him standing to bring the petition). Supreme Court agreed Martin had standing. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals determined Martin did in fact sufficiently allege standing. The fact that other nearby residents would experience the same intrusion as Martin was not dispositive:

The Appellate Division, in concluding that petitioner Marvin lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm “different from that of the public at large,” reasoning that because other Village residents also lived along the train line, Marvin did not suffer noise impacts different from his neighbors. * * *

To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.”]). The harm that is alleged must be specific to the individuals who allege it, and must be “different in kind or degree from the public at large”… , but it need not be unique. Here, petitioner Marvin is not alleging an indirect, collateral effect from the increased train noise that will be experienced by the public at large, but rather a particularized harm that may also be inflicted upon others in the community who live near the tracks.

The number of people who are affected by the challenged action is not dispositive of standing. …[S]tanding rules should not be “heavy-handed,” …[w]e are “reluctant to apply [standing] principles in an overly restrictive manner where the result would be to completely shield a particular action from judicial review” … . Applying the Appellate Division’s reasoning, because there are multiple residents who are directly impacted, no resident of the Village would have standing to challenge the actions of the Village, notwithstanding that the train noise fell within the zone of interest of SEQRA. That result would effectively insulate the Village’s actions from any review and thereby run afoul of our pronouncement that the standing rule should not be so restrictive as to avoid judicial review. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 08452, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Use of Stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) Key to Allow Persons to Enter the Subway System for a Small Fee Deprived the NYCTA of Its Property and Therefore Constituted Petit Larceny

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined the misdemeanor information adequately alleged petit larceny based upon the defendant’s use of a stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) key to allow two people to enter the subway system in return for a small fee. The issue was whether the information alleged that the NYCTA was the “owner” of the fees paid to the defendant. The case turned on distinguishing People v Hightower (18 NY3d 249) where the court held the use of a legally purchased MetroCard to swipe persons through a subway turnstile (for a fee) did not constitute petit larceny because the NYCTA did not own the card and therefore no property was taken from the NYCTA. The fact that the NYCTA key was stolen was the distinguishing factor. The dissent, however, did not see the distinction. The majority wrote:

… [T]he information adequately alleged all the elements of a larceny in setting forth defendant’s unauthorized use of the illegally-obtained key to allow the undercover officers to enter through the emergency exit gate in exchange for money, thereby depriving the NYCTA, as the owner, of its property. People v Matthew P., 2015 NY Slip Op 08454, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Where Defendant Was Released on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Relevant Period of Incarceration Can Not Be Excluded from the Ten-Year Second Violent Felony Offender Calculation; Without That Exclusion, Defendant Could Not Be Sentenced as a Second Felon

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined (1) Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 120.90, requiring a quick arraignment after arrest, only applies where the defendant is arrested by police officers (here corrections officers told defendant of his arrest); (2) CPL 190.50, requiring notice of a grand jury presentation, does not apply where defendant has not been arraigned in a local court; and (3) the 442 days defendant was incarcerated for a parole violation could not be excluded from the ten-year “second violent felony offender” calculation because he was released from that incarceration on a writ of habeas corpus. Without that 442-day exclusion, defendant’s prior conviction was older than ten years and he could not be sentenced as a second felon:

A defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony may be adjudicated a second violent felony offender if he was previously convicted of a violent felony within ten years of the current offense (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][iv]). “[A]ny period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony” is excluded from the ten-year calculation (Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][v]). * * *

Although the habeas court did not vacate defendant’s conviction for a parole violation, it did grant his immediate release from confinement after determining that “the evidence did not support” defendant’s incarceration. A person “illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty . . . may petition without notice for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such detention and for deliverance” (CPLR 7002[a]). If a judge considering the habeas petition determines that a person has been unlawfully detained, he “shall . . . issue a writ of habeas corpus for the relief of that person” (id.). That the habeas court in this case granted defendant’s immediate release based on a lack of evidence indicates that defendant was “imprisoned without reason” from 1992-1993. People v Small, 2015 NY Slip Op 08457, CtApp 11-19-15

 

,

Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant, by requesting a partial verdict on the count on which the jury had reached a verdict, had consented to a mistrial on the two remaining counts and, therefore, had waived double jeopardy protection for those two counts:

After one juror was found unable to serve, defendant refused to substitute an alternate juror and requested a partial verdict on the one count on which the jury had indicated it had reached a verdict. The Appellate Division granted the [defendant’s] petition [prohibiting retrial] on the basis that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and did not address the issue of consent. Because defendant implicitly consented to a mistrial on two of three counts by requesting a partial verdict and by saying nothing about the court’s plans for retrial … , we need not reach the issue of manifest necessity. Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2015 NY Slip Op 08455, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the presumption of vindictive sentencing. Defendant, in this rape case, was offered a plea to a D felony and 10 years probation. The defendant went to trial and was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. The court explained that the presumption of vindictive sentencing, which has been applied to sentencing upon retrial after a successful appeal, did not apply in this case:

“[C]riminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal” … . After a new trial, the sentencing court must give affirmative reasons “concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding” to justify a higher sentence … . * * *

By contrast, the same policy concerns are not implicated when a defendant rejects a plea offer, proceeds to trial for the first time, and is given a harsher sentence than the plea offer.

“Given that the quid pro quo of the bargaining process will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that ordinarily would be greater, it is also to be anticipated that sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea” (People v Pena , 50 NY2d 400, 412 … ). In Pena , this Court concluded that the defendant was not punished by the imposition of the lawful, but greater, sentence received after rejecting a lenient plea offer and proceeding to trial.

Here, after hearing the court’s warning that he would not receive such leniency should he be found guilty, defendant rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial. Supreme Court imposed a lawful sentence, based upon defendant’s remorseless statement at the sentencing hearing, the heinous nature of the crimes, and the victim’s sentencing statement. Furthermore, the plea offer would have required defendant to plead guilty to a class D felony, whereas defendant was convicted after trial of a class B violent felony offense for which the court could not have legally imposed the probationary sentence offered with respect to the plea. Defendant’s rejection of the plea offer also required the victim to testify about the sexual abuse at trial, a factor this Court has recognized as a legitimate basis for the imposition of a more severe sentence after trial than that which the defendant would have received upon a plea of guilty … . Had the presumption of vindictiveness applied to this case, these would constitute legitimate and reasoned bases for the more severe sentence imposed … . People v Martinez, 2015 NY Slip Op 08456, CtApp 11-19-15

 

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