CRIMINAL LAW

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim---results which ruled out the defendant---did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence "is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]" … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not "invariably necessary"; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a

Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel's colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel's colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored "is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions" …. Excluding defense counsel's experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover's testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover's testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

SORA Court Has Discretion to Deny Downward Departure Even When Mitigating Factor Demonstrated by Preponderance of Evidence

In affirming the SORA court’s denial of an application for a downward departure, the Second Department noted that even where the defendant makes a showing by a preponderance of the evidence in support of a mitigating factor, the court need grant the application:

" A sex offender's successful showing by a preponderance of the evidence of facts in support of an appropriate mitigating factor does not automatically result in the relief requested, but merely opens the door to the SORA court's exercise of its sound discretion upon further examination of all relevant circumstances'" … .  People v Martinez-Guzman, 2013 NY Slip Op 05561, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

Burden Upon Police to Determine Whether Defendant

Represented by Counsel Explained

In affirming the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction after a hearing (over a substantial dissent), the Third Department explained the burden upon the police to determine whether a defendant is represented by counsel before questioning him. In this case the question was whether defendant’s attorney, who represented defendant in a robbery case resolved by a cooperation agreement and who initially was involved a homicide case in 2003, was still representing the defendant in the homicide case when the defendant was questioned about it in 2006:

Although [defendant’s attorney] clearly participated in the homicide investigation in 2003 and the police were well aware that he had entered into it as defendant's counsel, the parties agree that there was a genuine lack of clarity …surrounding the question of whether that representation was limited to the cooperation agreement and had terminated once defendant was sentenced in the robbery case.  

It is well settled that where, as here, there is any ambiguity as to whether the defendant is represented by counsel, the burden rests squarely on the police to resolve that ambiguity prior to questioning … .  Here, before questioning defendant in 2006, [the police] met with [defendant’s attorney], who told them unequivocally that he no longer represented defendant.  Inasmuch as the police fulfilled their obligation to resolve the ambiguity by determining that [the attorney’s] representation of defendant had terminated prior to questioning him, County Court did not err in concluding that defendant's right to counsel had not been violated … .  People v McLean, 104691, 3rd Dept, 8-8-13

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Supreme Court Does Not Have the Power to Dismiss a Complaint for Delay in Prosecution Absent 90-Notice (CPLR 3216)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint based on delay in prosecuting the action because the 90-day demand (CPLR 3216) had not been served on the plaintiff.  The First Department wrote:

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and also stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action. Here, the Supreme Court did not possess the power to dismiss this pre-note of issue action on the ground of a general lack of prosecution since the plaintiff had not received a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) requiring the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue … .  Armouth-Levy v New York City, 2013 NY Slip Op 05551, 2nd Dept, 6-7-13

Complaint Can Not Be Deemed Dismissed in

Absence of Final Judgment

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a complaint had not been dismissed because no final judgment dismissing the complaint had been entered after an order vacating a default:

…[T]he Supreme Court issued an order granting the defendant's motion to vacate his default in appearing and answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. However, no judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction was entered. The plaintiff subsequently moved to extend her time to serve the defendant with process in the action. …[T]he court denied the plaintiff's motion on the ground that its prior order had dismissed the action and, thus, there was no pending action in which to grant an extension of time for service of process … . On her appeal from the August 13, 2012, order, the plaintiff contends that, inasmuch as there was no judgment dismissing the action, the action was pending when she moved to extend the time to serve the defendant with process. We agree. An action is deemed pending until there is a final judgment (see CPLR 5011…)… .  Cooke-Garrett v Hoque, 2013 NY Slip Op 05554, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

Courts Have Discretion to Grant Affirmative Relief in Absence of a Formal Cross-Motion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, the Second Department determined trial courts have the discretion to determine applications made in the absence of the formal requirements of a cross-motion.  In this case the defendant answered a motion for a default judgment demonstrating a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Included in the answering papers was an application for leave to serve a late answer to compel plaintiff to accept the answer.  Supreme Court granted all the requested relief.  The plaintiff appealed on the ground that the affirmative relief should have been requested through a formal cross-motion.  The Second Department wrote:

Given the language of CPLR 2215, and the contexts in which it is applicable, the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a party seeking relief in connection with another party's motion is, as a general rule, required to do so by way of a cross motion, at least to have a right that the request be determined on the merits. Otherwise, a party who seeks relief by way of a notice of cross motion would be in a position less favorable than that of a party who merely makes the request without a notice of cross motion: the party who makes a formal cross motion would be required to comply with the notice and service requirements and deadlines imposed by the statute, but a party seeking relief merely by requesting it would enjoy greater flexibility. 

Nonetheless, courts retain discretion to entertain requests for affirmative relief that do not meet the requirements of CPLR 2215. Litigants, however, must be cognizant of an important distinction between the two situations: a party in compliance with CPLR 2215 is entitled to have its cross motion considered; a party not in compliance with the statute must hope that the court opts, in the exercise of its discretion, to entertain the request. Thus, we are in agreement with our colleagues in the Appellate Division, Third Department, who, in Fox Wander W. Neighborhood Assn. v Luther Forest Community Assn. (178 AD2d at 872), held that, even in the absence of an explicit notice of cross motion, the Supreme Court is not "prohibited" from entertaining the nonmoving party's request for relief.  Fried v Jacob Holding Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05555, 2nd Dept 8-7-13