You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

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)

,

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)

,

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

 

,

Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, in affirming defendant’s conviction and sentencing, discussed ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and statutory interpretation issues. The ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct discussions are fact-specific and not summarized here. With respect to the statutory interpretation issue, the defendant argued he should not have been sentenced as a second child sexual assault felony offender because the People were required to file a predicate statement (notifying him an enhanced sentence would be sought) prior to trial and did not do so. The court determined the statutory language indicating the predicate statement “may” be filed any time before trial (in Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 400.19) did not preclude the People from filing the statement after trial started, and did not indicate the People had the discretion not to seek an enhanced sentence:

The explicit language in section one [of Penal Law 70.07] states that a person convicted of a felony offense for sexual assault against a child, who has a predicate felony conviction for child sexual assault, “must be sentenced” in accordance with Penal Law § 70.07 sentencing provisions. The applicable time for invoking the procedures contained in CPL 400.19 does not change the import of the mandatory language in Penal Law § 70.07, which subjects this category of offenders to legislatively promulgated enhanced sentences. Furthermore, the specific language in CPL 400.19 (2) upon which defendant relies merely permits filing of the statement before commencement of a trial. It does not prohibit filing afterwards, and before sentencing. As courts have concluded, “may” does not mean “must” … . Notwithstanding defendant’s requests that we read the statute otherwise, this Court is without authority to read mandatory language into a statute where it is otherwise absent … . People v Wragg, 2015 NY Slip Op 08453, CtApp 11-19-15

 

, ,

Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Pigott concurred), determined petitioner, who received public assistance from New York City and was therefore required to work 35 hours per week in the Work Experience Program (WEP), was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Petitioner, after completing the WEP, won $10,000 in the state lottery. Under the lottery rules, the state sought one-half of the lottery proceeds as reimbursement for the public assistance paid to petitioner. Petitioner argued that the reimbursement reduced the amount the state paid him for his WEP work below the minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s argument. The bulk of the opinion and the dissent dealt with the propriety of finding petitioner was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage protections of the FLSA:

… [W]e must apply the economic reality test and, under that test, the City should be considered Carver’s employer. The City had the power to hire and fire WEP workers, in that it was the City’s responsibility to assign public assistance recipients to a WEP agency and the City could dismiss workers from WEP based upon their performance. Additionally, the City and its WEP agencies supervise and control the work schedule of the workers. Furthermore, the City and its agencies, such as HRA, maintain the employment records of the WEP workers. While the Social Services Law, not the WEP agencies or the City, determines the rate and method of payment of WEP workers, that is simply one factor. The economic reality test “encompasses the totality of the circumstances” … . Matter of Carver v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08451, 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