Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Court of Appeals held that the definition of credit card in N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 511(1), as supplemented by N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 511-a, is the controlling definition as designated by N.Y. Penal Law 155.00(7) and, as a result, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of grand larceny for stealing an intangible credit card account number.Defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree was based on Defendant's theft of the victim's credit card account number to purchase goods. During trial, there was no evidence that Defendant possessed the physical card itself. At issue was whether the People needed to prove that Defendant physically possessed the tangible credit card in order to support his conviction of grand larceny based upon credit card theft. The issue turned on the definition of credit card for purposes of N.Y. Penal Law 155.00(7) and whether that definition includes the credit card account number. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that, under the Penal Law, theft of a tangible card is not a necessary element of fourth-degree grand larceny. View "People v. Badji" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawfully possessing a firearm, holding that the lower courts properly concluded that Defendant was not entitled to a jury charge regarding temporary and lawful possession.On Defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which Defendant was entitled to a temporary and lawful possession charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which a jury could find that Defendant's initial possession of the firearm was temporary and lawful, Defendant was not entitled to a jury charge on that defense; and (2) Defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict was unavailing. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from and ordered a new trial on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, holding that the jury should have been instructed regarding the definition of voluntary possession, and the failure to so charge was not harmless.Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful possession of marihuana. Based on the trial evidence, Defendant requested that the jury be charged on voluntary possession of the gun. The court denied the requested charge. The jury convicted Defendant of third-degree possession of the gun and unlawful possession of marihuana. The Appellate Division modified and affirmed, summarily rejecting Defendant's challenge to the jury instructions. The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction of third-degree possession of a weapon, holding that a reasonable juror could have concluded that Defendant had constructive, knowing, but not voluntary, possession of the gun in question for a brief moment, and therefore, the failure to instruct the jury regarding the definition of voluntary possession was not harmless. View "People v J.L." on Justia Law