You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE.

The First Department determined the alleged victim of an assault was properly allowed to testify by Skype from Egypt. The victim had been prohibited from returning to the US from Egypt and the prosecutor had done everything possible to facilitate his return:

We conclude that, given the unusual circumstances of this case, and the prosecutor’s good faith, the People made the specific, individualized showing necessary to justify remote video testimony. The Confrontation Clause’s general guarantee of face-to-face testimony is not absolute … . Video testimony is permissible “provided there is an individualized determination that denial of physical, face-to-face confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured” (People v Wrotten, 14 NY3d 33…). Moreover, in Wrotten, the Court of Appeals recognized that video testimony could be employed in circumstances other than those involving a vulnerable child witness or a witness who was too ill to appear in court, as was the case in Wrotten (id. at 39-40).

Defendant concedes that the two-way video testimony at issue “preserve[d] the essential safeguards of testimonial reliability” … . The dispositive question is whether the testimony was ” necessary to further an important public policy'” … , which, in this case, is “the public policy of justly resolving criminal cases” … , a showing that must be made by clear and convincing evidence … . People v Giurdanella, 2016 NY Slip Op 07577, 1st Dept 11-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)/VIDEO, REMOTE TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE/SKYPE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)

STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSAULT.

The First Department determined a strict liability offense cannot serve as a predicate felony for felony assault. The defendant was charged with the unauthorized practice of medicine (Education Law 6512) which resulted in the serious injury of one victim and the death of another. Because the Education Law offense is a strict liability offense (no mens rea requirement), it cannot serve as the basis for felony assault:

An assault committed during the course of a felony that causes serious physical injury to the victim may be charged as felony assault under Penal Law § 120.10(4). The Court of Appeals has explained that, under the doctrine of constructive malice, the mens rea element of the assault charge is satisfied by the mens rea element of the predicate felony … . …

Education Law § 6512(1) does not contain a mens rea element and solely requires a voluntary act of the unauthorized practice of medicine … . Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly held that the felony of the unauthorized practice of medicine cannot serve as a predicate felony to support the felony assault charges.

Further, although the Penal Law states that a “statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liability, should be construed as defining a crime of mental culpability” (Penal Law § 15.15[2]), the felony of unauthorized practice of medicine was created by the legislature as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme to require licensing for occupations that pose safety risks to the public. These malum prohibitum crimes are generally construed as strict liability crimes, as a mens rea element would negatively affect enforcement of these statutes and minimize their impact … . People v Mobley, 2016 NY Slip Op 07576, 1st Dept 11-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSAULT)/UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF MEDICINE (STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSAULT)/FELONY ASSAULT (STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSAULT)

, ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under the New York City Human Rights Law for sexual orientation-based discrimination:

Plaintiff’s allegations that he is an openly gay man and was qualified for the positions of correction officer and captain meet the first two elements of his discrimination claim. Plaintiff’s allegations that he was written up, twice suspended, and ultimately demoted meet the third element of disadvantageous treatment … . Defendant’s argument that plaintiff has not alleged that he was treated worse than similarly situated captains — as opposed to correction officers — is unavailing. Suspension and demotion are, on their faces, adverse employment actions. Defendant’s argument is, effectively, that those actions were warranted by plaintiff’s conduct while a captain, but this argument goes more properly to the second leg of the … burden-shifting framework … , namely rebuttal of a prima facie claim of employment discrimination by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, and is misplaced at this early procedural juncture. James v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07400, 1st Dept 11-10-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYC) (PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS)/CPLR 3211 (a)(7) (PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS)

DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, affirmed Supreme Court’s annulment of parole denial and ordered a new hearing before different commissioners. Petitioner shot and killed her husband. Evidence presented at trial indicated she had been abused by her husband for many years and her husband was threatening severe abuse at the time of the shooting. Petitioner earned two college degrees while in prison, participated in every available rehabilitation program, taught other inmates, served on a grievance committee, successfully worked for the Department of Motor Vehicles and testing indicated it was highly unlikely she would re-offend. Yet she was denied parole three times:

Based on the record before us, we conclude that the motion court correctly determined that the Board acted with an irrationality bordering on impropriety in denying petitioner parole. The Board focused exclusively on the seriousness of petitioner’s conviction and the decedent’s family’s victim impact statements (which it incorrectly described as “community opposition to her release”) without giving genuine consideration to petitioner’s remorse, institutional achievements, release plan, and her lack of any prior violent criminal history.

The Board’s statement that, “[d]espite your assertions of abuse being rejected by a jury after hearing you testify for eight days, and having no corroboration on record of the abuse, you continue to blame your victim for his death,” disregards petitioner’s testimony accepting responsibility and expressing remorse for her actions. It also fails to recognize that petitioner may legitimately view herself as a battered woman, even though the jury did not find that she met New York’s exacting requirements for the defenses of justification (Penal Law § 35.15[2]) and extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]). * * * …[W]e agree with the motion court that apologizing for the shooting while steadfastly maintaining that she was an abuse victim does not indicate a lack of remorse for her actions. Matter of Rossakis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2016 NY Slip Op 07415, 1st Dept 10-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED)/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not make an inquiry into his request to represent himself. Defendant’s request was made during jury selection and was summarily rejected as untimely:

The right to self-representation … is subject to several restrictions … . Thus, “[a] defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … . When a defendant timely invokes the right to self-representation, “the trial court should conduct a thorough inquiry to determine whether the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily” … .

Judged by these principles, we conclude that defendant’s right to self-representation was violated. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, defendant’s requests to proceed pro se, made during jury selection, were timely asserted … . People v Crespo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07396, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)

, ,

EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

The First Department, in remanding for a new trial, determined (1) the expert disclosure notice provided by the defense was sufficient, and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed, during the trial, to submit an expert disclosure notice for a rebuttal witness.  Plaintiff alleged his foot was run over by a bus:

After the defense rested, plaintiff’s attorney sought permission to call two rebuttal witnesses. He submitted a CPLR 3101(d)(1) notice for an expert in biomechanical medicine, arguing that the disclosure notice for Dr. Kurtz had provided no indication that the doctor’s opinion was based on the lack of tread marks or injury to the metatarsals and ankle. He argued that the notice’s insufficiency had not allowed him to prepare an expert witness to address these issues directly. His proposed expert would demonstrate, by use of an anatomical model of a foot, that plaintiff’s foot could have been positioned after he fell in such a manner that when the bus wheel rolled over his foot, his ankle and upper foot would not have been injured as Dr. Kurtz claimed. The court denied his request based on the timing of the notice and its reasoning that no rebuttal was needed. …

We find that Dr. Kurtz’s CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure notice was legally sufficient; it provided plaintiff with notice that the doctor would question whether a bus would have caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff. It is improper for a party to request the facts and opinions upon which another party’s expert is expected to testify … . * * *

… [N]otwithstanding the delay by plaintiff in providing a CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure for his medical expert, the trial court, in the interest of justice, should have permitted the medical expert to testify in rebuttal. The court had allowed Dr. Kurtz to opine that there were inconsistencies between the claim of how the accident occurred and the resulting injuries, and although the testimony was not in his expertise, it was heard by the jury and opened the door to the necessity for plaintiff to produce a medical expert to attempt to rebut those opinions. Tate-Mitros v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07394, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/REBUTTAL EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)

AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the provisions of the Tax Law which allow the imposition of an amusement tax and a cabaret tax were not unconstitutional either facially or as applied to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs operate a men’s entertainment club featuring topless dancers (Hustler Club). The Tax Law includes exemptions for certain types of entertainment, i.e., dramatic or musical art performances. Plaintiffs argued the exemptions should apply to the adult entertainment at the club, as well. In rejecting the constitutional arguments, the court wrote:

Here, the Tax Laws are laws “of general application” … . The Amusement Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny place where any facilities for entertainment, amusement, or sports are provided” (Tax Law § 1101[d][10]), and the Cabaret Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny roof garden, cabaret or other similar place which furnishes a public performance for profit” (Tax Law § 1101[d][12]). The Tax Laws “ha[ve] not selected a narrow group to bear fully the burden of the tax” … , since the taxes imposed on plaintiffs are equally applicable to many other types of entertainment and recreational activities, including sporting events, car races, amusement parks, arcades, zoos, animal performances, and magic acts … . Nor are the performances of the sort presented at the Hustler Club “singled out for special treatment”… based on their erotic, sexual, or adult nature. The performances merely happen to fall under the very broad categories of “entertainment” or “amusement,” for purposes of the Amusement Tax, and “public performance for profit,” for purposes of the Cabaret Tax. CMSG Rest. Group, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07280, 1st Dept 11-3-16

TAX LAW (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/AMUSEMENT TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/CABARET TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/ADULT ENTERTAINMENT (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A MATERIAL STAGE OF HIS TRIAL.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, determined defendant was deprived of his right to be present during a material stage of the trial and he was therefore entitled to a new trial and a new Molineux/Ventimiglia hearing concerning the admissibility of prior bad acts and uncharged offenses allegedly committed against his girlfriend. Defendant was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. A year before trial, a Molineux/Ventimiglia hearing was held in the defendant’s presence, but the judge never ruled on the admissibility of prior uncharged offenses. The trial was held before a different judge who conducted an off-the-record conference about the uncharged offenses at which defendant was not present. Although a written summary of the off-the-record conference was drawn up, the judge’s reasoning for allowing evidence of uncharged offenses was not stated in the summary. The First Department held defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of his trial had been violated:

…[T]he arguments on admissibility were conducted before two different judges, a year apart, and defendant was not present the second time, when the attorneys conferred with the judge who considered their arguments and made rulings. Furthermore, some of the discussions were not even recorded, occurring as they did in the trial judge’s chambers or robing room without a court reporter. … It is not clear, for instance, that the papers originally submitted to the hearing court were also submitted to the trial court, or whether the trial court considered them. Nor is it clear whether the trial court read the hearing transcript or conducted its own de novo hearing. Even if the trial court considered the same papers and read the hearing transcript, the record is silent as to what particular facts were emphasized at the hearing before the trial court, what the court’s concerns were, and its reasons for making its rulings. The informal pretrial hearing was not, therefore, a sort of reargument of purely legal issues at which defendant could have nothing to contribute … . Thus, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that defendant’s presence at the pretrial Molineux/Ventimiglia hearing before the trial court would have been “useless, or the benefit but a shadow” … . People v Hoey, 2016 NY Slip Op 07150, 1st Dept 11-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A MATERIAL STAGE OF HIS TRIAL)/MOLINEUX/VENTIMIGLIA HEARING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A MATERIAL STAGE OF HIS TRIAL)MATERIAL STAGE OF TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A MATERIAL STAGE OF HIS TRIAL)

ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, which was based upon injury incurred in an elevator, was properly dismissed. Under the circumstances (not explained in the decision) the elevator could not be considered a safety device. Plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, alleging debris as a slipping hazard, should not have been dismissed:

Dismissal was properly granted with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action in that plaintiff alleged that he was injured while riding in one of the building’s elevators. In this case, the passenger elevator was not a safety device for protecting a construction worker from a risk posed by elevation as contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The court erred, however, in dismissing that portion of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim to the extent the claim was predicated on violations of Industrial Code … . While there were no facts alleged to support a claim that plaintiff was injured as the result of a slipping hazard, plaintiff’s complaint, as supplemented by his affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion, sufficiently alleged that debris was one of the causes of his fall … . Smith v Extell W. 45th St. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07089, 1st Dept 10-27-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/ELEVATORS (LABOR LAW, ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

,

AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence would not be reviewed in the interest of justice. Defendant had been promised a three-year sentence, but was not eligible for a sentence less than six years. In violation of his plea agreement, defendant committed a crime while awaiting sentence. As a result the three-year promise was properly withdrawn and a six year sentence imposed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s failure to object based upon the illegal three-year sentence promise precluded appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, upon remittal, the Appellate Division could consider the question if it exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction (which the majority declined to do):

… [T]here is nothing rare or unusual about this case or this defendant. The plea proceedings do not raise a concern about defendant’s guilt. Defendant was advised of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and affirmed he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Defendant was represented by counsel and received a favorable sentence. Finally, defendant violated the plea agreement by committing another crime and the final sentence imposed was both legal and within the range announced by the court. Nor has defendant presented anything to demonstrate that his case is extraordinary. These facts, coupled with defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for review, fail to support the exercise of our discretion to review in the interest of justice, and militate against such exercise. People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07102, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/SENTENCING (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)

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