COURT OF APPEALS

CRIMINAL LAW/EVIDENCE

Defendant's Statement Was Circumstantial Evidence of the Taking Element of Grand Larceny Because an Innocent Inference from the Statement Was Possible; Video Surveillance Was Direct Evidence of the Taking Element Despite Defendant's "Innocent" Explanation of His Actions

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined video surveillance showing defendant first hiding and then rifling through the victim's purse was direct, not circumstantial, evidence of the taking element of grand larceny (despite the defendant's non-criminal explanation of his actions). The court also determined the defendant's statement "I don't have it, but I can get it" (made when asked about the purse) was circumstantial evidence of the taking element because an innocent explanation for having the purse could be inferred from the statement. Because both direct and circumstantial evidence of grand larceny was presented, the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction was not required:

It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant's guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence ... . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt, such a charge need not be given ... .

We agree with defendant that his statement to the prosecution witness that he did not have the purse but could get it was not direct evidence of his guilt. A defendant's statement is direct evidence only "if it constitutes 'a relevant admission of guilt' " ... . * * *

Here, defendant's statement — that he did not have the purse but could get it — was not a direct admission of his guilt of larceny. Rather, defendant's statement was also consistent with an inference that although he did not steal the purse, he knew where the purse was located and thought he could obtain it. Inasmuch as his statement merely included inculpatory facts from which the jury may or may not have inferred guilt, his statement was circumstantial rather than direct evidence ... .

We agree with the People, however, that the surveillance video constituted direct evidence of defendant's guilt of larceny. The "taking" element of larceny "is satisfied by a showing that the thief exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights" ... . People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08369, CtApp 11-18-15

CRIMINAL LAW/EVIDENCE

​

Courts Have the Power to Exclude Evidence Admitted by Stipulation; Trial Judge's Refusal to Exclude the Evidence, Under the Facts, Was Not an Abuse of Discretion

In a conspiracy prosecution arising from a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders, the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge properly refused to exclude documentary evidence, and testimony concerning the evidence, which, although inadmissible, was admitted by stipulation and was not objected to until the day after the testimony. The court noted that the trial judge, in the exercise of discretion, had the power to exclude the evidence, despite the stipulation.  But because the admitted evidence did not raise a constitutional (confrontation) issue, was not highly prejudicial, and was not the subject of a timely objection, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in this case:

Although courts are ordinarily bound to enforce party stipulations ... , where a party has in the interests of judicial economy stipulated to the admission of voluminous materials and there are among them scattered items, both prejudicial and ordinarily inadmissible that may reasonably have escaped counsel's attention, there is no rule preventing an exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the party, at least in part, from the stipulation, particularly where doing so would not significantly prejudice the other side. The trial court here did not take a contrary view in declining to redact the record as defendant requested. It ruled as it did not because it understood the parties' stipulation categorically to preclude relief of the sort sought, but because significant unobjected-to testimony had already been received ... . While the court might have exercised its discretion differently, its decision not to revisit the issue of the notation's admissibility, cannot under the circumstances be characterized as an abuse of discretion, as would be necessary for it to qualify as a predicate for relief in this Court ... . Although the stipulation was not irreversibly binding, it was at least presumptively enforceable and defendant offered no plausible excuse for failing earlier to seek an exception from its coverage. Assuming that the disputed notation might have reasonably escaped notice before trial — and that is at best questionable — it was prominently referenced in [the related] testimony, but even then elicited no contemporaneous protest.

This moreover was not a situation in which the receipt of an extrajudicial statement resulted in a denial of the constitutional right of confrontation. The notation was not testimonial hearsay ... ; at worst its admission ran counter to evidentiary rules of nonconstitutional provenance and was, in light of other evidence in the case received without even belated objection, practically redundant. Indeed, a different exercise of discretion by the trial court to exclude the note and redact record references to it, would not have materially altered the evidentiary equation. People v Gary, 2015 NY Slip Op 08368, CtApp 11-18-15

CRIMINAL LAW/EVIDENCE

​

Evidence of Prior Violent Act by Defendant Properly Admitted to Refute "Extreme Emotional Disturbance" Affirmative Defense

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, in a murder case, determined that evidence of a prior violent act committed by the defendant was properly admitted to rebut defendant's "extreme emotional disturbance" defense. Defendant presented expert testimony alleging he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from a stabbing attack. The defendant argued that his reaction to seeing his friend attacked, intensified by the PTSD, was the reason he fired his gun at a group of people, killing one of them. The defense argued that, prior to the stabbing which triggered the PTSD, defendant was a non-violent person. The evidence of the pre-PTSD violent act by defendant was properly admitted to call into question the "PTSD" defense. A violent incident which occurred after the charged offense, however, should not have been admitted:

Where .... evidence of a defendant's bad acts or uncharged crimes is "relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes" ... .

Evidence of uncharged criminal conduct or bad acts that are probative of a defendant's state of mind may be admissible if the defendant "opens the door" to such evidence by putting in issue his state of mind at the time of the commission of the charged crime by, for example, raising an extreme emotional disturbance or insanity defense ... . Nevertheless, such a defense opens the door to the People's rebuttal evidence "only to the extent that [the proffered] evidence has a natural tendency to disprove [the defendant's] specific claim" ... . That is, evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts is admissible to rebut an extreme emotional disturbance defense where the evidence has "some 'logical relationship' to, and a 'direct bearing upon,' the People's effort to disprove" the defense, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect ... .  Although the balancing of probative value against potential prejudice is a matter that lies within the trial court's discretion ..., "the threshold question of identifying a material issue to which the evidence is relevant poses a question of law" ... . 

... The crux of the defense was that defendant, a previously nonviolent person, was suffering from PTSD as a result of the 2005 stabbing incident and that his actions in firing into the group on the street were attributable to his PTSD. By raising this defense and presenting the testimony of [two witnesses] — both of whom testified regarding defendant's personality and behavior before the 2005 stabbing as compared with his behavior after that event — defendant "necessarily put[] in issue some aspects of his character and personal history" ... . The prosecutor's inquiries pertaining to the 2002 incident were "directly relevant to the question of defendant's reaction patterns" because it was an instance in which "defendant had resorted to violence in the face of relatively mild provocation" before the 2005 stabbing occurred ... . This altercation "ha[d] a logical and natural tendency to disprove [defendant's] specific claim" that he was an otherwise peaceful person who reacted with violence only because his PTSD was triggered by the circumstances in which the shooting took place ... . In other words, it tended to refute the subjective element of defendant's defense, i.e. that he actually acted under the influence of PTSD. Moreover, the court's decision to allow this incident to be explored on cross-examination, rather than through the testimony of a rebuttal witness, was not improper under the facts presented here. People v Israel, 2015 NY Slip Op 08370, CtApp 11-18-15

CRIMINAL LAW/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict 

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant, by requesting a partial verdict on the count on which the jury had reached a verdict, had consented to a mistrial on the two remaining counts and, therefore, had waived double jeopardy protection for those two counts:

After one juror was found unable to serve, defendant refused to substitute an alternate juror and requested a partial verdict on the one count on which the jury had indicated it had reached a verdict. The Appellate Division granted the [defendant's] petition [prohibiting retrial] on the basis that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and did not address the issue of consent. Because defendant implicitly consented to a mistrial on two of three counts by requesting a partial verdict and by saying nothing about the court's plans for retrial ... , we need not reach the issue of manifest necessity. Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2015 NY Slip Op 08455, CtApp 11-19-15

CRIMINAL LAW

Use of Stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) Key to Allow Persons to Enter the Subway System for a Small Fee Deprived the NYCTA of Its Property and Therefore Constituted Petit Larceny 

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined the misdemeanor information adequately alleged petit larceny based upon the defendant's use of a stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) key to allow two people to enter the subway system in return for a small fee. The issue was whether the information alleged that the NYCTA was the "owner" of the fees paid to the defendant. The case turned on distinguishing People v Hightower (18 NY3d 249) where the court held the use of a legally purchased MetroCard to swipe persons through a subway turnstile (for a fee) did not constitute petit larceny because the NYCTA did not own the card and therefore no property was taken from the NYCTA. The fact that the NYCTA key was stolen was the distinguishing factor. The dissent, however, did not see the distinction. The majority wrote:

... [T]he information adequately alleged all the elements of a larceny in setting forth defendant's unauthorized use of the illegally-obtained key to allow the undercover officers to enter through the emergency exit gate in exchange for money, thereby depriving the NYCTA, as the owner, of its property. People v Matthew P., 2015 NY Slip Op 08454, CtApp 11-19-15

CRIMINAL LAW

​

Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, in affirming defendant's conviction and sentencing, discussed ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and statutory interpretation issues. The ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct discussions are fact-specific and not summarized here. With respect to the statutory interpretation issue, the defendant argued he should not have been sentenced as a second child sexual assault felony offender because the People were required to file a predicate statement (notifying him an enhanced sentence would be sought) prior to trial and did not do so. The court determined the statutory language indicating the predicate statement "may" be filed any time before trial (in Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 400.19) did not preclude the People from filing the statement after trial started, and did not indicate the People had the discretion not to seek an enhanced sentence:

The explicit language in section one [of Penal Law 70.07] states that a person convicted of a felony offense for sexual assault against a child, who has a predicate felony conviction for child sexual assault, "must be sentenced" in accordance with Penal Law § 70.07 sentencing provisions. The applicable time for invoking the procedures contained in CPL 400.19 does not change the import of the mandatory language in Penal Law § 70.07, which subjects this category of offenders to legislatively promulgated enhanced sentences. Furthermore, the specific language in CPL 400.19 (2) upon which defendant relies merely permits filing of the statement before commencement of a trial. It does not prohibit filing afterwards, and before sentencing. As courts have concluded, "may" does not mean "must" ... . Notwithstanding defendant's requests that we read the statute otherwise, this Court is without authority to read mandatory language into a statute where it is otherwise absent ... . People v Wragg, 2015 NY Slip Op 08453, CtApp 11-19-15

CRIMINAL LAW

​

Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the presumption of vindictive sentencing. Defendant, in this rape case, was offered a plea to a D felony and 10 years probation. The defendant went to trial and was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. The court explained that the presumption of vindictive sentencing, which has been applied to sentencing upon retrial after a successful appeal, did not apply in this case:

"[C]riminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal" ... . After a new trial, the sentencing court must give affirmative reasons "concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding" to justify a higher sentence ... . * * *

By contrast, the same policy concerns are not implicated when a defendant rejects a plea offer, proceeds to trial for the first time, and is given a harsher sentence than the plea offer.

"Given that the quid pro quo of the bargaining process will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that ordinarily would be greater, it is also to be anticipated that sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea" (People v Pena , 50 NY2d 400, 412 ... ). In Pena , this Court concluded that the defendant was not punished by the imposition of the lawful, but greater, sentence received after rejecting a lenient plea offer and proceeding to trial.

Here, after hearing the court's warning that he would not receive such leniency should he be found guilty, defendant rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial. Supreme Court imposed a lawful sentence, based upon defendant's remorseless statement at the sentencing hearing, the heinous nature of the crimes, and the victim's sentencing statement. Furthermore, the plea offer would have required defendant to plead guilty to a class D felony, whereas defendant was convicted after trial of a class B violent felony offense for which the court could not have legally imposed the probationary sentence offered with respect to the plea. Defendant's rejection of the plea offer also required the victim to testify about the sexual abuse at trial, a factor this Court has recognized as a legitimate basis for the imposition of a more severe sentence after trial than that which the defendant would have received upon a plea of guilty ... . Had the presumption of vindictiveness applied to this case, these would constitute legitimate and reasoned bases for the more severe sentence imposed ... . People v Martinez, 2015 NY Slip Op 08456, CtApp 11-19-15

CRIMINAL LAW

Where Defendant Was Released on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Relevant Period of Incarceration Can Not Be Excluded from the Ten-Year Second Violent Felony Offender Calculation; Without That Exclusion, Defendant Could Not Be Sentenced as a Second Felon

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined (1) Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 120.90, requiring a quick arraignment after arrest, only applies where the defendant is arrested by police officers (here corrections officers told defendant of his arrest); (2) CPL 190.50, requiring notice of a grand jury presentation, does not apply where defendant has not been arraigned in a local court; and (3) the 442 days defendant was incarcerated for a parole violation could not be excluded from in the ten-year "second violent felony offender" calculation because he was released from that incarceration on a writ of habeas corpus. Without that 442-day exclusion, defendant's prior conviction was older than ten years and he could not be sentenced as a second felon:

A defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony may be adjudicated a second violent felony offender if he was previously convicted of a violent felony within ten years of the current offense (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][iv]). "[A]ny period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony" is excluded from the ten-year calculation (Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][v]). * * *

Although the habeas court did not vacate defendant's conviction for a parole violation, it did grant his immediate release from confinement after determining that "the evidence did not support" defendant's incarceration. A person "illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty . . . may petition without notice for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such detention and for deliverance" (CPLR 7002[a]). If a judge considering the habeas petition determines that a person has been unlawfully detained, he "shall . . . issue a writ of habeas corpus for the relief of that person" (id.). That the habeas court in this case granted defendant's immediate release based on a lack of evidence indicates that defendant was "imprisoned without reason" from 1992-1993. People v Small, 2015 NY Slip Op 08457, CtApp 11-19-15

EMPLOYMENT LAW/MUNICIPAL

Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the "Work Experience Program [WEP]" to Receive Public Assistance, Was an "Employee" Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Pigott concurred), determined petitioner, who received public assistance from New York City and was therefore required to work 35 hours per week in the Work Experience Program (WEP), was an "employee" entitled to the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Petitioner, after completing the WEP, won $10,000 in the state lottery. Under the lottery rules, the state sought one-half of the lottery proceeds as reimbursement for the public assistance paid to petitioner. Petitioner argued that the reimbursement reduced the amount the state paid him for his WEP work below the minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner's argument. The bulk of the opinion and the dissent dealt with the propriety of finding petitioner was an "employee" entitled to the minimum wage protections of the FLSA:

... [W]e must apply the economic reality test and, under that test, the City should be considered Carver's employer. The City had the power to hire and fire WEP workers, in that it was the City's responsibility to assign public assistance recipients to a WEP agency and the City could dismiss workers from WEP based upon their performance. Additionally, the City and its WEP agencies supervise and control the work schedule of the workers. Furthermore, the City and its agencies, such as HRA, maintain the employment records of the WEP workers. While the Social Services Law, not the WEP agencies or the City, determines the rate and method of payment of WEP workers, that is simply one factor. The economic reality test "encompasses the totality of the circumstances" ... . Matter of Carver v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08451, CtApp 11-19-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW/MUNICIPAL LAW

​

Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner's Standing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals clarified the nature of the standing requirement for contesting municipal rulings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village of Painted Post had approved the sale of municipal water to a company which operates gas wells in Pennsylvania. As part of that project, construction of a railroad loading facility was approved. A resident of the village, Martin, was one of the petitioners seeking the annulment of the Village's SEQRA rulings. Martin, who lives near the rail facility, alleged the noise from the facility was different in degree from that experienced by the general public (thus according him standing to bring the petition). Supreme Court agreed Martin had standing. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals determined Martin did in fact sufficiently allege standing. The fact that other nearby residents would experience the same intrusion as Martin was not dispositive:

The Appellate Division, in concluding that petitioner Marvin lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm "different from that of the public at large," reasoning that because other Village residents also lived along the train line, Marvin did not suffer noise impacts different from his neighbors. * * * 

To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody."]). The harm that is alleged must be specific to the individuals who allege it, and must be "different in kind or degree from the public at large"... , but it need not be unique. Here, petitioner Marvin is not alleging an indirect, collateral effect from the increased train noise that will be experienced by the public at large, but rather a particularized harm that may also be inflicted upon others in the community who live near the tracks.

The number of people who are affected by the challenged action is not dispositive of standing. ...[S]tanding rules should not be "heavy-handed," ...[w]e are "reluctant to apply [standing] principles in an overly restrictive manner where the result would be to completely shield a particular action from judicial review" ... . Applying the Appellate Division's reasoning, because there are multiple residents who are directly impacted, no resident of the Village would have standing to challenge the actions of the Village, notwithstanding that the train noise fell within the zone of interest of SEQRA. That result would effectively insulate the Village's actions from any review and thereby run afoul of our pronouncement that the standing rule should not be so restrictive as to avoid judicial review. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 08452, CtApp 11-19-15