You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

BECAUSE THE CRIMES INVOLVED ARE NOT “REGISTRABLE OFFENSES” AND NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY WERE SEX OFFENSES, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED SPECIALIZED SEXUAL OFFENDER CONDITIONS UPON DEFENDANT’S PROBATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying the judgment of conviction, determined the specialized sexual offender conditions should not have been imposed upon defendant’s probation because the underlying offenses had no connection to sex offenses:

Although neither burglary in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.20), the crime for which defendant was indicted, nor criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15 [1]), the crime for which defendant was convicted, qualify as registerable offenses under Correction Law § 168-a (2), we previously have held that it may be “proper to impose sex offender conditions in cases which do not technically qualify as sex offender cases, . . . so long as the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, are reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life, and are necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” … . That said, upon reviewing defendant’s criminal history and considering the circumstances underlying the crime of conviction, we agree with defendant that the specialized sexual offender conditions imposed by County Court do not meet that standard.

Regardless of whether defendant completed sex offender treatment prior to being successfully discharged from probation in Florida in September 2000, the fact remains that — in the nearly 25 years that have elapsed since then — defendant has not been charged with any additional sex offenses; indeed, prior to the underlying trespass incident in March 2023, it appears that defendant — with the exception of an unspecified “criminal registration” offense in Florida in November 2000 — was not charged with any new crimes at all. Additionally, the criminal trespass conviction did not stem from defendant entering a school, no children were present at the time of the offense (or otherwise involved or implicated in its commission) and the underlying crime was not even tangentially related to either a sex or child welfare offense … . Under these circumstances, County Court abused its discretion in imposing the specialized sexual offender conditions upon defendant’s probation. People v Rhodehouse, 2025 NY Slip Op 03228, Third Dept 5-29-25

Practice Point: Although specialized sexual offender conditions can be imposed upon probation where the underlying crimes are not sex offenses, here it was an abuse of discretion to do so, based upon the absence of sex offenses from defendant’s criminal history.

 

, ,

BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED; ON REMITTAL THE PEOPLE SHOULD PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE REQUEST TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AND, TO FACILITATE ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED REVIEW, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating the protective order and remitting the matter, determined the County Court failed to hold the hearing which is required where defense counsel did not consent to the issuance of a protective order. The Third Department offered guidance on how the further proceedings should be conducted, i.e., defense counsel should be given advanced written notice of the request for a protective order (a motion by order to show cause), and, to facilitate an expedited review, defense counsel should be provided with a copy of the protective order:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70 (3), “[u]pon request for a protective order, unless the defendant voluntarily consents to the people’s request for a protective order, the court shall conduct an appropriate hearing within three business days to determine whether good cause has been shown.” Here, it is undisputed that defense counsel did not consent to the People’s proposed protective order for the disputed materials…. . …

… [I]t is true that, under certain circumstances and in an appropriate case, CPL 245.70 (1) permits a court to conduct ex parte proceedings and accept in camera submissions. … “[T]he better practice, in most cases, would be for the People to provide the defendant with advanced written notice, by way of motion brought on by order to show cause, that certain information had not been disclosed and a protective order was being sought under CPL 245.70” … . Proceeding in this manner would “allow defense counsel to see the portions of the People’s written application that contained legal argument or other matter that would not reveal the information sought to be covered by the protective order” … , and ensure that defense counsel has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing to the fullest extent practicable. …

… [R]ecognizing that CPL 245.70 (6) provides an opportunity for expedited review of a protective order by a Justice of the Appellate Division, “within two business days of the adverse or partially adverse ruling,” the party seeking such expedited review should be provided a copy of the subject order. While the papers submitted in support of the People’s application for a protective order and the hearing transcript may be appropriately sealed to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information … , the same does not hold true for the protective order itself. That said, in drafting a protective order, the court should be mindful not to discuss the protected materials or include confidential information that would obviate the basis for granting the protective order or sealing the documents and materials considered. People v Murphy, 2025 NY Slip Op 02975, Third Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Where defense counsel does not consent to a protective order, the statute requires the judge to conduct a hearing. Failure to hold the hearing requires vacation of the protective order.

Practice Point: The better practice is to notify defense counsel of the request for a protective order by a motion brought by an order to show cause.

Practice Point: Defense counsel who seeks an expedited review should be provided with a copy of the protective order.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL BASED UPON COUNSEL’S REMARK THAT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS UNWARRANTED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid, defendant demonstrated a conflict of interest on assigned counsel’s part, and the judge did not conduct a proper inquiry about defendant’s requests for new counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea. The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence, not the conviction or plea, and remitted the matter for the assignment of new counsel and an inquiry about defendant’s request for substitute counsel and his request to withdraw his plea:

At sentencing, the Conflict Defender explained that she had “numerous phone conversations” with defendant about the grounds for his motion — namely, that assigned counsel’s communication of the People’s plea offer amounted to coercion; that defendant’s learning disability had prevented him from comprehending the consequences of his plea; and that the Conflict Defender was herself conflicted out of representing defendant. Based on her conversations with defendant, the Conflict Defender stated to County Court, “I don’t believe there is anything that warranted [defendant] withdrawing a plea, so I didn’t file a motion” … . “While apparently inadvertent, counsel’s remark . . . affirmatively undermined arguments her client wished the court to review, thereby depriving defendant of effective assistance of counsel” … , and the court should have relieved the Conflict Defender and assigned new counsel to represent defendant on the motion … .

We also agree with defendant that the allegations of assigned counsel’s ineffectiveness were sufficiently serious and factually specific to trigger County Court’s duty to consider his request for substitute counsel … . An indigent defendant’s right to court-appointed representation “does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant’s option” … . “Rather, a defendant may be entitled to new counsel only upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” … . * * *

In addition to alleging that assigned counsel coerced him into pleading guilty, defendant’s letters to County Court asserted that assigned counsel failed to visit him in jail or discuss his case with him; dodged his phone calls on specific dates; sent other attorneys to represent defendant who did not seem to be knowledgeable about the case; intended to oppose any motion defendant made to substitute counsel; and told defendant that his only other options for representation were to hire private counsel or represent himself. Further, defendant indicated that assigned counsel misadvised defendant about his sentencing exposure in a prior case, resulting in an appeal from that conviction on the ground of assigned counsel’s ineffectiveness. Defendant also alleged that assigned counsel was not relaying information or following his instructions in representing him in a separate, contemporaneous criminal action against him. Reading defendant’s allegations of ineffectiveness in the context of defendant’s purported history with assigned counsel, defendant’s complaints set out a plausible claim that the trust and communication between him and assigned counsel had broken down irretrievably … . Faced with these complaints, the court was required to “make at least a minimal inquiry, and discern meritorious complaints from disingenuous applications by inquiring as to the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” … . People v Ubrich, 2025 NY Slip Op 02824, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s remark that defendant’s request to withdraw his plea was unwarranted demonstrated a conflict of interest requiring the assignment of new counsel.

Practice Point: Here defendant raised serious issues about assigned counsel’s representation requiring the judge to consider his request for substitute counsel.

Practice Point: Here defendant raised serious issues in support of his request to withdraw his guilty plea which required an inquiry by the judge.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE USE FOR THE REQUIRED TEN YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; HOWEVER BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE WAS PERMISSIVE AND CONTINUED FOR 50 YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY ESTOPPEL WERE MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendants’ properties, but did have an easement by estoppel. Because there was an agreement among the original owners of the three adjacent camps to construct, maintain and use a roadway providing vehicular access to all three camps, and because there had been no hostile use of the roadway for ten years, the requirements for a prescriptive easement were not met. However plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by estoppel. The court noted that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to an easement by estoppel:

[Re; a prescriptive easement] … [B]ecause plaintiffs’ predecessors’ use of the extension was permissive, the element of hostility was negated … . Therefore, no adverse use could have arisen until there was the assertion of a hostile right … , which, at the earliest, occurred in 2018. We are presented with a permissive use that did not ripen into a prescriptive one for the time required … .

Yet, these same facts establish plaintiffs’ entitlement to an easement by estoppel … . “An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner’s representation that an easement exists” … . The uncontested existence of the agreement between the parties’ predecessors for the construction and use of the extension, together with the time and expense of not only the initial construction but, also, the continued 50-year maintenance thereof, demonstrates that plaintiffs “undertook . . . action[s] to their detriment in reasonable reliance upon a representation that they held an easement” … . Sardino v Scholet Family Irrevocable Trust, 2025 NY Slip Op 02828, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear illustrations of the criteria for a prescriptive easement and an easement by estoppel.

 

, ,

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, an incarcerated person with serious mental illness, did not violate the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act) but did violate the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (SHU Exclusion Law):

… [P]etitioner remained in the RMHU [residential mental health treatment unit] where he received at least seven hours of out-of-cell time, therefore he was not in segregated confinement, which is defined as “the confinement of an incarcerated individual in any form of cell confinement for more than [17] hours a day” (Correction Law § 2 [23]). * * * Therefore, based on the foregoing, DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] did not violate Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) by placing petitioner in the RMHU longer than three days without the requisite findings under the HALT Act.

However … we do find that the disciplinary sanctions, as written, violated the SHU Exclusion Law as set forth in Correction Law § 401. To that end, Correction Law § 401 provides that “[a]n incarcerated individual . . . shall not be sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct [in an RMHTU], or removed from the unit and placed in segregated confinement or a[n RRU (residential rehabilitation unit)], except in exceptional circumstances where such incarcerated individual’s conduct poses a significant and unreasonable risk to . . . safety . . . and . . . has been found to have committed an act or acts defined in [Correction Law § 137 [k] [6] [ii]]” (Correction Law § 401 [5] …). “Because the statute is phrased in the disjunctive” … , DOCCS must find that exceptional circumstances existed and a Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) act occurred if either 1) the incarcerated individual is sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct on the unit or 2) the incarcerated individual is removed and placed in segregated confinement or an RRU. Here, the former applies as petitioner was sanctioned, in writing, with segregated confinement in the RMHU but was not found, in a written determination, to have committed an act pursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii), a fact which is uncontested by either party. Thus, the written disciplinary sanction was in violation of the SHU Exclusion Law. Therefore, the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon petitioner must be annulled. Matter of Walker v Commissioner, N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 02834, Third Dept 5-8-25

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A NEGOTIATED SENTENCE, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL; THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTION THAT THE DEFENDANT FIRED MORE THAN ONE BULLET (THERE WAS A SECOND SHOOTER) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the 25-year sentence for manslaughter and the 10-year sentence for attempted assault, which, pursuant to a plea agreement with a negotiated sentence, were imposed consecutively, must be served concurrently. Because the defendant pled guilty, the only relevant evidence is in the plea allocution. The majority concluded the record did not demonstrate that the defendant fired more than one bullet and therefore there was no proof the manslaughter and attempted assault charges stemmed from two separate acts (there was a second shooter):

“Consecutive sentences are appropriate only when either the elements of the crimes do not overlap or if the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentences and, when a defendant pleads guilty to a count in the indictment, may meet their burden by relying on the allegations in the accusatory instrument and any facts adduced at the plea allocution … . Where, as here, a defendant also pleads guilty to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment, the People may only rely upon those facts and circumstances admitted during the plea allocution with respect to that count … . To this point, the facts necessary to support consecutive sentences may not be discerned from statements included in a presentence report … .

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as there are no facts alleged in the count of the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty, or in the plea allocution relating to either count, that would establish that defendant’s “shooting a firearm,” which constituted manslaughter in the first degree by causing the death of the victim (count 1) and attempted assault in the first degree to a different victim (count 4), “arose from a separate and distinct pull of the trigger by defendant” … . People v Sabb, 2025 NY Slip Op 02624, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: To justify consecutive sentences the offenses must be the result of distinct acts. When conviction is by guilty plea, the plea allocution is the only admissible evidence of what happened (the pre-sentence report cannot be considered). Here, because the defendant did not admit to firing more than one bullet in the plea allocution, the sentences for manslaughter and attempted assault cannot be imposed consecutively. There was a cogent two-justice dissent.​

 

,

THERE ARE TWO STATUTORY PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A SEWER DISTRICT; HERE THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION WAS INITIATED UNDER ONE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM, BUT THE TOWN APPLIED THE OTHER STATUTORY PROCEDURE, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A REFERENDUM; THAT WAS ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town failed to follow the correct statutory procedure for approval of an extension of a sewer district to include petitioner’s commercial development  There are two statutory procedures. The Town Law Article 12 procedure applies when a petition is filed by an owner of taxable property (like the petitioner in this case). The Article 12 procedure has no “referendum” requirement. The Town Law Article 12-A procedure is initiated by the town and requires a referendum. Here the town required a referendum and thereby applied the wrong statutory procedure:

… [W]ithout formally ruling on the article 12 petition, the Town Board … essentially approved the extension project under the framework of article 12-A by providing for a permissive referendum. Recognizing that these articles do not contain any mechanism for such a conversion, we find that the Town Board erred and, as a result, its resolutions must be invalidated. Matter of Glen Wild Land Co., LLC v Town of Thompson, 2025 NY Slip Op 02628, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: Where the Town Law provides two distinct statutory procedures for approval of an extension of a sewer district, the town must follow the procedure in the applicable statute. Here the applicable statute did not require a referendum but the inapplicable statute did. The town erred when it required a referendum.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, FATHER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER VISITATION WITH THE CHILD, WHICH NEED NOT INCLUDE CONTACT VISITATION, IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; IT IS THE MOTHER’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE VISITATION WOULD BE HARMFUL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the incarcerated father was entitled to a hearing on whether visitation would be in the best interests of the child. Father was convicted of assaulting mother when mother was seven months pregnant. Family Court had granted mother’s summary judgment motion precluding father’s contact until the child turns 18. The Third Department found that summary judgment in the absence of a hearing was inappropriate:

… [W]e agree with the father’s contention that a hearing was required regarding the issue of visitation. Plainly stated, we do not find that, given the specific circumstances of this case, denying the father any contact with the child until the child’s 18th birthday was appropriate on a summary judgment motion … . This is especially so given that “visitation . . . need not always include contact visitation at the prison” … . As such, the father is entitled to a hearing to determine what, if any, visitation is in the best interests of the child. By way of reminder, at this hearing, it is not the father’s burden to demonstrate that visitation is in the child’s best interests, but rather it is the mother, as the party opposing visitation, who has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that visitation with [the father] would, under all of the circumstances, be harmful to the child[‘s] welfare or contrary to [her] best interests” … . This includes a consideration of whether updates, photographs and/or letters may be appropriate and in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Jaime T. v Ryan U., 2025 NY Slip Op 02638, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: Once again it is Family Court’s failure to hold a hearing which results in reversal. Here the incarcerated father is entitled to a hearing on whether visitation, which need not include contact visitation, would be in the best interests of the child. At the hearing, it is mother’s burden to demonstration visitation would be harmful to the child.

 

,

THE TRIAL PROOF COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SUPPORT AN INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT SECOND) OR AN INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT THIRD); DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THAT COUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering an new trial on the assault second count, determined defendant’s request that the jury be instructed on assault third as a lesser included offense should have been granted:

… County Court erred in refusing [defendant’s]  request to charge assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree. Assault in the second degree is committed when a person acts “[w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person [and] causes such injury to such person or to a third person” … ; assault in the third degree, in contrast, is committed when a person acts “[w]ith intent to cause physical injury to another person [and] causes such injury to such person or to a third person” … . There is no dispute that assault in the third degree as defined in Penal Law § 120.00 (1) is a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree as defined in Penal Law § 120.05 (1), as a person could intend and cause physical injury to a victim while not intending or causing serious physical injury … . The trial proof here left little doubt that defendant began by attempting to discipline the victim but that things soon escalated to the point where he was trying to injure her, including by picking her up by her throat and holding her against a wall for a few minutes, allowing her to fall to the floor and then slapping her. This proof permitted the finding that defendant intended to cause a serious physical injury which “create[d] a substantial risk of death, or . . . serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ,” and such an injury resulted when the victim fell to the floor and broke her tooth … .

… [I]t was unclear whether defendant anticipated that the conscious victim would fall when he released her, and there was conflicting testimony as to whether he threw her to the floor with enough force to break her tooth or she simply took a bad fall after he let her drop. The victim’s treating dentist further conceded in his testimony that a tooth could accidentally break and that he had seen such injuries result from incidents as minor as “biting down on forks wrong.” When viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, this proof could allow “a jury [to] reasonably conclude that defendant intended and caused ‘physical injury’ to the victim” as opposed to serious physical injury … . People v Hooper, 2025 NY Slip Op 02623, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: There is no question that Assault third is a lesser included offense of Assault second. Here, the trial proof could be interpreted to support an intent to cause serious physical injury (Assault second) or an intent to cause physical injury (Assault third). Therefore defendant’s request for a jury instruction on Assault third should have been granted. A new trial was ordered on that count.

 

, , , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COURT SHOULD USE ITS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE EMPLOYED SPARINGLY, FACTORS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring decision and an extensive dissent, determined the juvenile delinquency petition should be dismissed in the interest of justice. The concurrence argued the dismissal should be based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The dissent argued this difficult situation was properly handled:

Although we are mindful that “[d]ismissal in the furtherance of justice is an extraordinary remedy that must be employed sparingly,” it is our opinion that this is one of “those rare cases where there [are] compelling factor[s] which clearly demonstrate[ ] that prosecution [resulted in an] injustice” .. . … [A]ttempted assault in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor, is not serious … . … [T]he DSS caseworker was not seriously injured. * * * … [A]t the time of the attempted assault, respondent was in DSS’ care and custody because her mother was deceased and her grandmother, who subsequently adopted respondent, ultimately surrendered her rights. Respondent has a reportedly low IQ and a history of mental illness which was so severe that Family Court ordered a capacity evaluation … . Indeed, respondent had been brought to the hospital emergency room based on what was legally designed to be a temporary Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 hold. Respondent remained in what was essentially a lock and key detention in the hospital, mostly in the emergency room, under dubious circumstances for an outrageous period of six months.

… Respondent already had numerous strikes against her, not only her lack of a parent/guardian and her serious mental health challenges, but also a previous juvenile delinquency adjudication. This additional juvenile delinquency finding is a red flag that will undoubtedly hinder opportunities and could cause difficulty for respondent should she seek mental health assistance in the future. Simply put, respondent needs no additional baggage, especially not baggage stemming from a juvenile delinquency petition that was admittedly filed and continued because of the difficulty of placing her in a suitable setting … . Matter of A. WW., 2025 NY Slip Op 02377, Third Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed analysis of an appellate court’s authority under the Family Court Act to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition “in the interest of justice.”

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy