You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution portion of the sentence, determined the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. The defendant had won an appeal requiring a second trial. Defendant argued that the restitution in the amount of $139,231.87 ordered after the second trial was punishment for the successful appeal. The Third Department also dismissed the murder second degree counts a inclusory concurrent courts of murder first degree:

“[T]o insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendants for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions” … . * * *

… [T]he imposition of restitution after retrial did result in an enhanced sentence following defendant’s successful appeal, and, as a result, the presumption of vindictiveness arose … . However, the court failed to engage in any on-the-record examination of the objective reasons why an enhanced sentence must be imposed, other than finding that it was not vindictive to order defendant “to make financially whole the representatives of his victims,” facts that indisputably existed at the time of the initial sentencing … . * * *

While we observe that County Court may have not actually been seeking to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal when it imposed restitution, it was nevertheless the court’s obligation to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by placing the reasons for the enhanced sentence on the record, and, based upon its failure to do so, we are constrained to vacate this portion of defendant’s sentence … . People v Powell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01839, Second Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here ordering restitution as part of the sentence after the second trial raised a presumption that the restitution constituted “punishment” for defendant’s winning the appeal of the first trial. The sentencing court put nothing on the record to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, so the restitution was vacated.

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as concurrent inclusory counts of murder first.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had jurisdiction over the matter and had the authority to determine a farm located in the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve (Central Pine Barrens) was not running a commercial mulching operation in violation of the Code of the Town of Brookhaven:

Respondent Delea Sod Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Delea Farms) operates a farm in an agricultural district in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, where it primarily produces sod for sale that is used at, among other places, Yankee Stadium. Mulch and compost are stored and sold at the farm as well. The farm also lies within the Central Pine Barrens area as defined by the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act (ECL 57-0101 et seq. [hereinafter the Pine Barrens Act]), the Pine Barrens being an environmentally sensitive area of Long Island that contains an aquifer from which many locals obtain drinking water and is subject to “laws and policies . . . at all government levels to protect [it] from unbridled development” (… see also ECL 57-0107 [10]). Petitioner sued Delea Farms in March 2020 to enjoin it from running what was, in petitioner’s view, a commercial mulching operation that allegedly ran afoul of the farmland bill of rights and zoning regulations contained in the Code of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town Code) as well as the terms of a conditional discharge entered following a 2017 guilty plea by Delea Farms in a code enforcement matter. Delea Farms reacted by requesting an informal opinion from respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets as to whether its storage and sale of compost and mulch on the farm was “agricultural in nature” within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 308 (4). The Commissioner issued an opinion in July 2020 that the storage and sale of mulch and compost was an incidental agricultural use to the production and sale of sod at the farm. * * *

The Commissioner determined that Delea Farms was primarily operating the farm for sod production and harvesting, that it was not manufacturing or processing mulch at the farm and that the mulch and compost at the farm was either used on the farm itself or sold to customers who needed it to install the sod and nursery stock that was the farm’s actual focus. Matter of Town of Brookhaven v Ball, 2025 NY Slip Op 01686, Third Dept 3-20-25

 

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S CONCLUSION THAT CLAIMANT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RESCUE AND CLEANUP OPERATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board’s conclusion that claimant did not participate in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the World Trade Center (WTC) was not supported by the evidence:

… [C]laimant testified that, during her October 2001 and December 2001 assignments, she was assigned to the NYPD’s command center for the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations. The command center was located 600 feet from the WTC site and there were areas set up at the command center for claimant and others to provide mental health support to police and fire department personnel working on the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the site. According to claimant, she would respond to calls concerning distressed workers and those individuals would be brought to the command center or claimant would go the rubble pile where they were working. Claimant would do an assessment as to the extent of the individual’s mental health condition and determine whether the individual could continue working or be taken off line and provided mental health treatment through the NYPD employee assistance program. McArdle [NYPD on-site coordinator] testified that he remembered claimant being at the command center and providing support to those working in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operation and that she was “well received” by the NYPD. McArdle further testified that identifying those individuals who needed to be taken off line for treatment was instrumental in continuing the operation and that many of those individuals were able to return to the operation after treatment. Matter of Goss v WTC Volunteer, 2025 NY Slip Op 01413, Third Dept 3-13-25

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE APPOINTED STANDBY COUNSEL AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED, THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge did not conduct an adequate inquiry before granting defendant’s request to represent himself. The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for an inquiry to make sure a defendant understands the risks:

… [D]efendant repeatedly conditioned his request on proceeding pro se “with standby [counsel].” In response to defendant’s request, County Court inquired as to whether defendant knew the rule regarding standby counsel. Although defendant replied in the negative, the court provided no further explanation and, instead, proceeded to question defendant about his knowledge of the law. Following a week-long adjournment for defendant to confer with counsel regarding his request to proceed pro se, at the next court appearance, defendant reaffirmed his desire to proceed pro se with standby counsel. Although the court informed defendant that he did not qualify for standby counsel because he seemed to be familiar with some legal terms, defendant responded that he was requesting standby counsel because he does not know everything in the law. The record does not otherwise reflect that defendant was informed of or understood that, despite being permitted to proceed with standby counsel, there were risks inherent in proceeding pro se. Upon this record, we conclude that County Court’s inquiry was insufficient to establish that defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and voluntary and, accordingly, the plea must be vacated … . People v Gray, 2025 NY Slip Op 01259, Third Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for a judge’s responsibility to make an inquiry to ensure the defendant is aware of the risks of representing himself.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL THERE WAS NO APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined that the heightened definition of “impaired” which has been applied to a vehicular manslaughter charge need not be applied to driving while ability impaired by drugs or a combination thereof, the charges against defendant here. Therefore the failure to request that the jury be instructed to apply the heightened definition of impaired did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel:

At the time of defendant’s trial, there was no appellate authority which warranted a jury instruction concerning the heightened intoxication standard relative to the crimes that were pending against defendant. In Caden N. [189 AD3d 84], this Court, by its own express language, limited its holding to the crime of vehicular manslaughter, which of course is not present here. That is, this Court was careful to state that it was defining impairment “in the context of assessing whether a person has committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree” (People v Caden N., 189 AD3d at 90). In the event that this Court had also wished to apply the new definition of impairment to the underlying crimes of driving while ability impaired by drugs or by a combination thereof, it surely would have explicitly stated as much. * * *

In the absence of any such authority, defense counsel properly acquiesced to the jury being charged in accordance with the definition of impairment that was provided in the Criminal Jury Instructions as of that time. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any reasonable defense counsel would have requested the intoxication instruction in place of the impairment instruction, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to do so. People v Ambrosio, 2025 NY Slip Op 01133, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: The Third Department has applied a heightened definition of impairment for vehicular manslaughter cases. The Fourth Department refused to follow suit. The law in this area is in flux.

 

WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING FACTS FOR THE PREDICATE FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH ARE NOT ON THE RECORD; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined that whether the federal offense used as a predicate for defendant’s second felony offender designation is the equivalent of a New York felony depends on the underlying facts of the federal offense:

… [T]he federal statute under which defendant was previously convicted provides, in relevant part, that “it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance” (21 USC § 841 [a] [1]). As defendant points out, the federal statute contains elements not found in certain New York statutes, e.g., manufacturing, and encompasses a mix of felony and misdemeanor offenses … . Hence, resort to the facts underlying defendant’s federal conviction is warranted in order to ascertain whether defendant’s convictions are equivalent to a felony in this state … . However, because defendant did not controvert his status as a second felony offender, the People have not sought to admit an “accusatory instrument that describe[s] the particular act or acts underlying the charge [for purposes of] isolat[ing] and identify[ing] the statutory crime[s] of which . . . defendant was accused” for purposes of “determining whether Penal Law § 70.06 [1] [b] [i] has been satisfied” … . Accordingly, we remit this matter for a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to give the People the opportunity to establish, and defendant the opportunity to protest, the issue of equivalency, which is a determination we cannot make on the current record. People v Darby, 2025 NY Slip Op 01134, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: When a federal conviction is used as a predicate offense for a second felony offender designation, the federal offense must be equivalent to a New York felony. Here the federal offense included elements not included in the relevant New York felony. In that situation, it is necessary to look at the underlying facts for the federal conviction to determine equivalency.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s foot to sink down about an inch into soft temporary asphalt was trivial or open and obvious as a matter of law:

Although defendants stress that the alleged defect was, at most by plaintiff’s own admission, only an inch in height, even physically small defects can be actionable “when their surrounding circumstances or intrinsic characteristics make them difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as hazards or difficult to traverse safely on foot” … . When considering the attendant circumstances, including that the defect formed itself only as plaintiff stepped down on it, the location of the alleged defect in front of plaintiff’s driveway and that defendants acknowledged temporary asphalt could depress or settle but had no record or knowledge if they performed any inspection in the area where plaintiff fell, we cannot say “as a matter of law that the condition was so trivial and slight in nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen that an accident would happen” … . Nor can we say that the defect, which may have formed due to voids under the surface of the temporary asphalt and was not physically observable until after plaintiff stepped down on it, “did not constitute a trap for the unwary” … . To this point, the fact that the backfilled trench had a sharply contrasted hue as opposed to the rest of the roadway surface or the mouth of plaintiff’s driveway simply does not translate to an open and obvious condition because of the nature of the defect, which only formed after it had been stepped on, and therefore defendants’ reliance on these facts as an aegis is misplaced. Santiago v National Grid USA Serv. Co., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01139, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: The defendant seeking summary judgment in a slip and fall case bears the burden of demonstrating the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall was trivial or open and obvious. Here defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to eliminate questions of fact for either theory.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS 16 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND WAS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER IN 2012; THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED IN 2014; PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BROUGHT IN 2022 IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AND THE MATTER IS NOW REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the matter should be remitted for a ruling on whether defendant defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Defendant, who was 16 at the time of the crime was convicted of manslaughter in 2012. His conviction was affirmed in 2014. In 2022 defendant moved for a writ of coram nobis to permit him to argue that Supreme Court erred by failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status:

The decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion to determine “if in the opinion of the court the interest of justice would be served by relieving the eligible youth from the onus of a criminal record” … . “Among the factors to be considered are the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, the defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, the defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, the defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . Defendant argues, the People concede, and we agree that defendant is an eligible youth; thus, Supreme Court erred in failing to determine defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status in the first instance … .

Although this Court has the authority to determine whether defendant is entitled to youthful offender status … , we decline the People’s invitation to do so here in the complete absence of any consideration by the sentencing court as to whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for the explicit purpose of providing an opportunity to the parties to fully advocate for and against whether youthful offender status for defendant is warranted … . People v Vanderhorst, 2025 NY Slip Op 01012, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s erroneous failure to consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status was first raised in a motion for a writ of coram nobis after defendant’s conviction had been affirmed on appeal.

 

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