You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, vacating his plea, and granting part of the suppression motion, over a partial dissent, determined that all the statements defendant made after he responded “No sir” when asked if he was willing to answer questions should have been suppressed. The dissent argued statements made before defendant was read his Miranda rights should also be suppressed:

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his post-Miranda statements inasmuch as they were made after he invoked his right to remain silent by answering “No, sir” when asked if he would be willing to answer questions after being advised of his Miranda rights. We agree. ” ‘[I]n order to terminate questioning, the assertion by a defendant of [the] right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unqualified’ ” … . Whether a defendant’s “request was ‘unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant’ ” … . Here, we conclude that defendant clearly communicated a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely when he responded “No, sir” to the verbal and written inquiries about whether he was willing to answer questions … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress the holding cell statements, which were also made after defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly asserted his right to remain silent. Contrary to the People’s assertion that the statements were made spontaneously at a time when the detective was seeking “pedigree information,” we conclude that the People did not establish that the detective’s questions “were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” rather than “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” … . People v Sullivan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is asked whether he is willing to answer questions and answers “no,” any subsequent statements must be suppressed.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS GIRLFRIEND’S APARTMENT WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS AND PRAPHERNALIA WAS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s bench-trial conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia, determined the finding that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia located in his girlfriend’s apartment was against the weight of the evidence. Note that the Fourth Department concluded there was legally sufficient evidence of constructive possession:

… “[W]here there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the People are required to establish that the defendant exercised dominion or control over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found” … . The People may establish such constructive possession by circumstantial evidence … , “but a defendant’s mere presence in the area in which the contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession” … .

Here, while the People adduced evidence establishing that defendant had a key to the apartment and stayed there “from time to time,” defendant was not a party to the lease and a search of the premises did not reveal anything to “specifically connect[ ] defendant to the places where the contraband was ultimately found” … . Moreover, none of the contraband was in plain view … and, thus, no statutory presumption of defendant’s knowing possession applied … .

We conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion or control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 03454, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of when evidence is legally sufficient to withstand a motion for a trial order of dismissal but a finding based on that same evidence is deemed “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE HE SIGNED WAS INVALID DUE TO MUTUAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF LUMBAR DISC INJURIES AND LEFT HIP DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS “NOT FAIRLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact the validity of the release he signed in this traffic accident case:

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that there was a mutual mistake with respect to the extent of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained must establish that, at the time the release was executed, “the parties were under ‘[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury’ ” … . “[I]n resolving claims of mutual mistake as to injury at the time of release, there has been delineated a sharp distinction between injuries unknown to the parties and mistake as to the consequence of a known injury” … . “A mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release” … , whereas “[i]f the injury is known, and the mistake . . . is merely as to the consequence, future course, or sequelae of [the] known injury, then the release will stand” … . “Even where a releasor has knowledge of the causative trauma, . . . there must be actual knowledge of the injury. Knowledge of injury to an area of the body cannot cover injury of a different type and gravity” … . Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of mutual mistake inasmuch as, despite the fact that at the time the release was signed plaintiff had pain in the cervical spine and left hip and a diagnosis of a cervical strain, plaintiff alleged that neither party was aware of plaintiff’s lumbar disc injuries or left hip degenerative joint disease at that time … .

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that it was not fairly and knowingly entered into must establish that “the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, [or that] it was not ‘fairly and knowingly’ made” … . Again accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that, in the complaint and his affidavit in opposition to the motion, he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of whether the release was fairly and knowingly entered into inasmuch as plaintiff averred in his affidavit in opposition to the motion that, inter alia, he signed the release a short time after the accident occurred, he is unable to fluently read, understand or speak English, he did not understand the release, at the time he signed the release he did not have an attorney, he was not provided with an interpretation of the release, and he needed money for a vehicle in order to attend medical appointments … . Pastrana-Ortiz v Wemple, 2025 NY Slip Op 03425, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for explanations of the criteria for invalidating a release (1) due to fraud, (2) due to mutual mistake, and (3) because it was “not fairly and knowingly made.”

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; MONTHS LATER THE PEOPLE INDICTED THE DEFENDANT ON A MURDER CHARGE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S CPL 40.40 MOTION TO DISMISS THE MURDER INDICTMENT; THERE WAS A STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the murder indictment (CPL 40.40(2)), determined that the criminal possession of a weapon charges to which defendant pled guilty were not a barrier to a subsequent murder charge based on the same underlying facts. There was a comprehensive dissent:

… [O]n or about November 20, 2021, the 90-year-old victim was shot and killed in her home. When police officers arrived at the scene, defendant, the victim’s granddaughter, was found in the house and appeared to be in distress. Defendant gave the officers conflicting accounts of what had happened to her grandmother but consistently stated that there were guns in the house that defendant had been playing with. A pistol and a revolver were recovered from the home. The People presented evidence to a grand jury relating to the two firearms. The evidence included witness testimony from various police officers about the crime scene, including that the victim appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and about statements made to them by defendant. Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b [1]), and she pleaded guilty to both counts. * * *

“CPL 40.40 prohibits a separate prosecution of joinable offenses that arise out of the same transaction and involve different and distinct elements under circumstances wherein no violation of the double jeopardy principle can validly be maintained but the equities nevertheless seem to preclude separate prosecutions” … . Under CPL 40.40 (1), “[w]here two or more offenses are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction, . . . such person may not, under circumstances prescribed in this section, be separately prosecuted for such offenses.” A “criminal transaction” is defined as “conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). “When (a) one of two or more joinable offenses [that are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction] is charged in an accusatory instrument, and (b) another is not charged therein, or in any other accusatory instrument filed in the same court, despite possession by the [P]eople of evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction of the defendant for such uncharged offense, and (c) either a trial of the existing accusatory instrument is commenced or the action thereon is disposed of by a plea of guilty, any subsequent prosecution for the uncharged offense is thereby barred” (CPL 40.40 [2] …). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the conduct related to possession of the firearms and that related to the murder involved separate and distinct criminal acts that were not part of the same criminal transaction … . Thus, the murder count was properly charged on a separate accusatory instrument and the People did not violate CPL 40.40.

From the dissent:

… [P]rosecution of the murder charge is barred by CPL 40.40 (2) because it is joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (a) with the criminal possession of a firearm offenses charged in the prior indictment, and the People possessed legally sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction against defendant when she pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses. Where, as here, “the evidence against a person is in the prosecutor’s hands, [they] may not—as a player in a game of chance—deal out indictments one at a time” … . People v Harris, 2025 NY Slip Op 03419, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and was subsequently indicted for murder based on the same facts. The majority upheld the denial of the CPL 40.40(2) motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding the possession-of-a-weapon and murder charges were not part of the same criminal transaction. There was a strong dissent.

 

, ,

THE ERRONEOUS “LOSS OF CHANCE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED REVERSAL; THE CHARGE USED THE PHRASES “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” AND “SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY” WHEN THE CORRECT PHRASE IS “SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY” IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BETTER OUTCOME WAS DENIED DUE TO A DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reinstating the complaint and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action, determined the “loss of chance” jury instruction was erroneous and required reversal:

As this Court has held since at least 2011, a “loss of chance instruction” is “entirely appropriate for . . . omission theories” in medical malpractice actions … . Although the Pattern Jury Instructions did not include a loss of chance pattern charge until 2023, i.e., after the second trial in this matter took place in December 2022, this Court had already issued numerous decisions prior to December 2022 indicating that “the loss of chance theory of causation . . . requires only that a plaintiff ‘present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care’ ” … .

Here, the court instructed the jury that, in order for plaintiff to recover under a loss of chance theory, it was plaintiff’s burden to establish that the act or omission alleged was a “substantial factor in bringing about the death.” The court also instructed the jury that, if it should find that “there was a substantial probability that the decedent . . . would have survived . . . if he had received proper treatment,” then it could find that defendants’ alleged negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing his death … .

… [T]he charge, as given, did not ” ‘adequately convey[ ] the sum and substance of the applicable law’ ” to the jury … . The primary issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from accepted standards of care in failing to timely treat decedent. Inasmuch as the “court did not adequately charge the jury concerning” the appropriate standard to determine that issue, we conclude that “the court’s failure to define [the correct] standard for the jury” cannot be considered harmless under the circumstances of this case … . Wright v Stephens, 2025 NY Slip Op 03416, Fourth Dept 6-7-25

Practice Point: The “loss of chance” medical malpractice jury instruction requires that plaintiff show there was a “substantial possibility” that a deviation from the standard of care precluded a better outcome. Here the judge used the phrase “substantial probability,” requiring reversal.

 

, , , , ,

THE “EVEN YEAR ELECTION LAW” (EYEL) IS CONSTITUTIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Even Year Election Law (EYEL) does not violate the New York Constitution or the United States Constitution. The decision is complex and cannot be fairly summarized here:

The EYEL amended provisions of County Law § 400, Town Law § 80, Village Law § 17-1703-a (4), and Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) such that elections for most county, town, and village officials would be held on even-numbered years, and would no longer be held on odd-numbered years, effective January 1, 2025 … . Exceptions were made for the offices of town justice, sheriff, county clerk, district attorney, family court judge, county court judge, and surrogate court judge — each of which has a term of office provided in the New York Constitution … — as well as town and county offices with preexisting three-year terms, all offices in towns coterminous with villages, and all offices in counties located in New York City … . Additionally, a new subsection (h) was added to Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) to preclude county charters from superseding the newly enacted County Law § 400 (8).

The EYEL purports to encourage an increased voter turnout in local elections now scheduled in odd-numbered years, which are years without federal or state-wide elections on the ballot, consistent with the State’s public policy of “[e]ncourag[ing] participation in the elective franchise by all eligible voters to the maximum extent” … , and the mandate of the New York Board of Elections to “take all appropriate steps to encourage the broadest possible voter participation in elections” … .  County of Onondaga v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02818, Fourth Dept 5-7-25

 

, , ,

THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT TO PROCURE A RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; YET DEFENSE COUNSEL FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING AS AN ADULT AND ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE “YOUTHFUL OFFENDER” ISSUE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on the appeal and remitting the matter again, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The sole purpose for initially remitting the matter to Supreme Court was to procure a ruling on whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. But defense counsel focused only on defendant’s sentencing as an adult and essentially ignored the “youthful offender” issue. The Fourth Department offered a concise description of the New York State (as opposed to the federal) criteria for ineffective assistance:

Where, as here, a defendant contends that they received ineffective assistance of counsel under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, “we evaluate the claim using the state standard, which affords greater protection than its federal counterpart” … . “In New York, the standard for effective assistance is ‘meaningful representation’ by counsel” … . The ” ‘state standard . . . offers greater protection than the federal test’ because, ‘under our State Constitution, even in the absence of a reasonable probability of a different outcome, inadequacy of counsel will still warrant reversal whenever a defendant is deprived of [fair process]’ … . Although our courts “remain ‘skeptical’ of ineffective assistance of counsel claims where the defendant is unable to demonstrate any prejudice at all” … , in applying our state standard, we consider prejudice to be ” ‘a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation’ ” … . Stated differently, “[w]hile the inquiry focuses on the quality of the representation provided to the [defendant], the claim of ineffectiveness is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” … . “[T]he right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense . . . and who is familiar with, and able to employ[,] . . . basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … . Inasmuch as the defendant “bears the burden of establishing [a] claim that counsel’s performance is constitutionally deficient[,] . . . [the] defendant must demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged failure” … . * * *

The record establishes that, despite the specified purpose of the remittal, defense counsel submitted a memorandum riddled with spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors in which he requested that defendant be resentenced as an adult to a reduced determinate term of imprisonment and an unspecified period of postrelease supervision. Rather than providing an affirmative argument for adjudicating defendant a youthful offender based on the various factors to be considered … , defense counsel merely mentioned youthful offender status in passing to note that which was already known, namely, that the sentencing court had originally failed to address whether defendant should receive youthful offender status and thus never considered certain circumstances related to defendant. Defense counsel thereafter proceeded to make arguments that were relevant to defendant’s initial sentencing as an adult and the appellate challenges thereto but were unrelated to the factors applicable to determining upon remittal whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status and, in doing so, defense counsel also occasionally misstated the issues considered on defendant’s prior appeals … . People v Nathan, 2025 NY Slip Op 02700, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for effective assistance of counsel under the New York State (as opposed to the United States) Constitution.

 

, ,

DUE TO AN APPARENT DRAFTING ERROR, A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IS VALID FOR A FIRST TIME VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BUT IS ILLEGAL (EXCESSIVE) FOR A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; THE FACIALLY ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentence was illegal due to an apparent drafting error. The court noted the error need not be preserved for appeal:

… [T]he 16-year determinate sentence of imprisonment imposed by County Court is illegal. Had defendant been sentenced as a first-time violent felony offender, the court could have imposed a determinate sentence between 7 and 20 years of imprisonment for the conviction of attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer (see Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [b] [ii]). As a second violent felony offender convicted of a class C violent felony, however, defendant faced a determinate sentence of between 7 and 15 years (§ 70.04 [3] [b]). Thus, although seemingly a statutory anomaly resulting from a drafting error … , the 16-year sentence is illegal because it exceeds the maximum sentence permitted by the unambiguous statutory text based on defendant’s predicate felony offender status. “Although [that] issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court . . . , we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing … . People v Barnes, 2025 NY Slip Op 02694, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: A statutory limit placed on a sentence must be complied with by the judge even where, as here, the limit is an obvious drafting error.

 

, , ,

THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT CONTINUED DESPITE HER REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT SHE HAD NOTHING ELSE TO SAY AND WAS DONE TALKING; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defendant had unequivocally and repeated stated that she was “done talking” and had “nothing else to say” during her interrogation by investigators. The interrogators continued questioning her as if they hadn’t heard her assert her right to remain silent:

… [W]hile being interrogated at the police station, defendant stated to the investigators six separate times that she had “nothing else to . . . say” and that she was “done talking.” Even if defendant’s initial statement that she had nothing else to say may have been prompted by her “unwillingness to change [her] story” ,,, , she repeated her desire to stop talking even after the conversation shifted to another topic … . It is clear from a viewing of the interrogation video that defendant repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that she no longer wished to answer any more questions from the investigators. There was nothing equivocal about defendant’s invocations of the right to remain silent, which were not scrupulously honored by the investigators, who continued the interrogation as if they did not hear what defendant had said.

We thus conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress any and all statements made by defendant on August 19, 2020 after 12:03 a.m. on the interrogation video. “Inasmuch as there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of defendant’s inculpatory statements contributed to the verdict, the error in refusing to suppress all of those statements cannot be considered harmless, and reversal is required” … . People v Lipton, 2025 NY Slip Op 02691, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Any statements made in response to questioning after a defendant has told the interrogators he/she is “done talking” and has “nothing else to say” must be suppressed.

 

, ,

THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S PERIODIC ABSENCE FROM THE TRIAL; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WAS DELIBERATE, CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE IS A “MODE OF PROCEEDINGS” ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that conducting the trial in the defendant’s absence was a “mode of proceedings” error which need not be preserved for appeal. If it is clear from the record that a defendant’s absence from the trial was deliberate, there is no error. But here the record was silent about the reason for defendant’s periodic absence:

Because defendant initially appeared for trial, the court was required to determine that his absence was deliberate in order to find that he had forfeited his right to be present … . In making such a determination, a court should “inquire[ ] into the surrounding circumstances” and “recite[ ] on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” … . Even if the court fails to recite those facts and reasons on the record, no error will be found so long as the court found the absence to be deliberate and the record contains sufficient facts to support that determination, such as where the court granted a brief adjournment to attempt to locate the defendant to no avail … .

Here, the court proceeded in defendant’s absence without making a finding on the record that defendant’s absence was deliberate, without stating facts and reasons that would support a finding of deliberateness, and without granting an adjournment or taking other steps to locate defendant. Under these circumstances, the court committed reversible error and a new trial is required … . People v Taft, 2025 NY Slip Op 02685, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Where, as here, a defendant is periodically absent from the trial a “mode of proceedings” error has been committed unless the record demonstrates defendant’s absence was a deliberate choice on defendant’s part. Here the record was silent about the reason for defendant’s absence requiring reversal.

 

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