Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial courts in these two cases convicting Defendants of violating Administrative Code of the City of New York 19-190, known as the "Right of Way Law," holding that the statute is not unconstitutional.The Right of Way Law makes it a misdemeanor for a driver, while failing to exercise due care, to make contact with a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way and thereby cause physical injury. Both defendants in these cases were charged with violating the Right of Way Law, a misdemeanor. Defendants argued that the law's ordinary negligence mens rea violated due process because the standard was impermissibly vague and legally insufficient. Defendants also made two preemption arguments. Both defendants were convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Right of Way Law does not violate due process and is not preempted by state law. View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remanded with directions to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him insofar as it sought to dismiss the count in the indictment charging manslaughter in the second degree, holding that this count required dismissal.Defendant was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the evidence presented to the jury was legally insufficient. County Court granted the motion in part and dismissed the charge of manslaughter in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed and denied Defendant's motion in its entirety. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for second-degree manslaughter or the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. View "People v. Gaworecki" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of the suppression court denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain eavesdropping evidence, holding that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 700.At issue was whether a Kings County Supreme Court justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for Defendant's cell phones for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses in Kings County. The cell phones were not physically present in New York. The suppression court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that since the crimes were allegedly committed in Kings County, the county had jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes and there was a sufficient nexus of the issuance of the eavesdropping warrants in that county. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Kings County Supreme Court Justice presiding in the jurisdiction where Defendant's communications were overheard and accessed and therefore intercepted by authorized law enforcement agents had the authority to issue the warrants. View "People v. Schneider" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Term in these two cases reversing the default judgments entered against them for charges of certain traffic infractions, holding that a Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TVPA) judicial hearing officer is not authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial.Each defendant in this case pleaded not guilty to the traffic infractions charges and demanded a trial. When both defendants failed timely to appear from trial, a judicial hearing officer with the Suffolk County TPVA rendered default judgments against each of them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the unambiguous language of N.Y. Traf. & Veh. Law 1806-a makes clear that the TPVA - the court having jurisdiction - was prohibited from entering a default judgment against Defendants. View "People v. Iverson" on Justia Law

In these three appeals challenging the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument filed against Defendants, the Court of Appeals held that a certificate of translation is not required to convert a complaint into an information.At issue was whether the participation of a translator in the process of documenting the information from first-party witnesses with limited proficiency in English created a hearsay defect that required dismissal of the instrument. The Court of Appeals held that, as to all three cases, the accusatory instruments were facially sufficient. Specifically, the Court held (1) as to the first two cases, no facial defect was evident within the four corners of the accusatory instrument; and (2) in the third case, while the participation of a translator was documented within the witness's supporting affidavit, no additional layer was created by the use of a translator. View "People v. Slade" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, holding that the Appellate Term lacked authority to adopt a rule of criminal procedure requiring special circumstances for the renewed prosecution of a traffic offense after a previous dismissal for failure to provide a requested supporting disposition that is inconsistent with the courts' authority under the Criminal Procedure Law.Under the disputed rule, the People cannot reprosecute a defendant by filing a new simplified traffic information after the original implied traffic information was dismissed for facial insufficiency for failure to timely provide a requested supporting deposition. Defendant in this case was found guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law 1142(a). The Appellate Term reversed, vacated the order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, and granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the People were entitled to prosecute the traffic violation after dismissal of the first simplified traffic information. View "People v. Epakchi" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the provisions of Executive Law 552, which created a special prosecutor appointed by the Governor empowered to investigate and prosecute crimes of abuse or neglect of vulnerable victims in facilities operated, licensed, or certified by the State, was unconstitutional.Acting pursuant to this statutory authority, the special prosecutor obtained indictments against the three defendants in these appeals. Each defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that section 552 was facially unconstitutional because it is an impermissible attempt to delegate prosecutorial authority to an unelected official from the justice center. The trial court dismissed the indictment in each case. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the Legislature may not grant the special prosecutor independent concurrent authority with district attorneys to prosecute the crimes at issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the relevant portions of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act granting the special prosecutor concurrent prosecutorial authority with the District Attorneys are unconstitutional. View "People v. Viviani" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division affirming Supreme Court's judgment ordering the suppression of physical evidence seized from two vehicles, holding that the search warrant materials failed to provide probable cause to search the vehicles.The court issued a search warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's "person" and the "entire premises." Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the factual allegations did not support a search of the vehicles located outside the residence. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the search warrant contained no references to the vehicles to be searched, the record supported the finding that there was no probable cause to search the vehicles. View "People v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the regulations of the Office of Victim Services (OVS), as amended, that limit attorneys' fee awards for crime victim claimants to the costs incurred on applications for administrative reconsideration or appeal and on judicial review did not conflict with the authorizing statute, N.Y. Exec. Law 22, and were rational.The individual petitioners were crime victims who were represented by petitioner Gordon, Jackson & Simon in their applications for awards from OVS. Petitioners commenced this combined N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action arguing that the amended regulations and the denials of certain petitioners' attorneys' fee requests were arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court granted OVS's motion for summary judgment, declaring the amendments lawful. The Appellate Division modified and annulled the amendments, holding that the provisions limiting counsel fee awards for crime victims were inconsistent with the language and purposes of article 22. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that the regulations are consistent with the statutory language and that the OVS's rational construction was entitled to deference. View "Juarez v. New York State Office of Victim Services" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division upholding the denial of Defendant's suppression motion, holding that the search warrant in this case was facially valid and that Defendant's challenge to the execution of the search warrant was unpreserved for appellate review.Police officers searched Defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant and recovered, among other things, a handgun and ammunition. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrant was invalid because it did not meet the constitutional requirements of particularity. The motion court denied Defendant's suppression motion. Defendant then pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying suppression without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Duval" on Justia Law