New York Law Review

Author: The New York Law Review

  • People v. Morris, 28 N.Y.3d 1097 (2016): Preservation of Error and Mode of Proceedings Errors in Criminal Trials

    People v. Morris, 28 N.Y.3d 1097 (2016)

    In New York criminal procedure, a trial court’s alleged failure to provide a meaningful response to a jury’s inquiry does not constitute a mode of proceedings error for which no preservation is required if defense counsel had knowledge of the jury’s note and the court’s response, necessitating a timely objection to preserve the issue for appeal.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court’s actions regarding a jury’s request for testimony read-back constituted a mode of proceedings error, thus excusing the need for counsel to object. The court found that because defense counsel was aware of the jury’s note and the court’s partial read-back response, any error was not a mode of proceedings error. The Court held that the defendant was required to preserve the error for appeal by objecting. Without an objection, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the issue.

    Facts

    During deliberations, the jury sent a note requesting a read-back of a prosecution witness’s testimony. The trial court, without prior discussion with counsel, read the note’s content into the record. The court only read back the witness’s direct examination, omitting cross-examination, despite the jury’s unqualified request. Defense counsel did not object to either the procedure or the partial read-back.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding two mode of proceedings errors. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remitted the case.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court’s failure to discuss the jury note with counsel before responding constituted a mode of proceedings error, excusing the need for an objection.

    2. Whether the trial court’s failure to provide a meaningful response to the jury’s inquiry constituted a mode of proceedings error, excusing the need for an objection.

    Holding

    1. No, because the trial court read the exact content of the jury’s note into the record and complied with meaningful notice obligations, an objection was required to preserve any challenge to the trial court’s procedure.

    2. No, because counsel’s knowledge of the jury’s note and the court’s response meant any error was not a mode of proceedings error; a timely objection was required to preserve the issue.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished between errors that require preservation (objection) and mode of proceedings errors (which do not). A mode of proceedings error is a fundamental error that affects the organization of the court or the mode of trial. The court reasoned that the trial court complied with its notice obligations under CPL 310.30, as counsel had notice of the jury’s note. The Court held that the claimed error in the trial court’s response was not a mode of proceedings error because counsel was aware of what the jury requested and what the court provided. As such, counsel’s silence, where an objection could have corrected the perceived error, meant the issue was unpreserved. The Court cited People v. Starling, noting, “[C]ounsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim un-preserved and unreviewable here.”

  • People v. Davidson, No. 86 (N.Y. 2016): Authority of Special Prosecutors to Prosecute in Local Criminal Courts

    People v. Davidson, No. 86 (N.Y. 2016)

    The New York Court of Appeals held that the special prosecutor appointed under Executive Law § 552 (2)(a) has the authority to prosecute abuse and neglect cases in local criminal courts, and that Executive Law § 552 (2)(c) does not limit the special prosecutor’s powers to only County and Supreme Courts and grand jury proceedings.

    Summary

    The case concerns the authority of a special prosecutor, appointed under New York’s “Protection of People with Special Needs Act,” to prosecute cases in local criminal courts. The defendant, an employee of a residential center for vulnerable persons, was charged with crimes in Town Court. She argued that the special prosecutor lacked authority to prosecute in local courts, citing Executive Law § 552 (2)(c), which she claimed limited the special prosecutor’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the County Court’s decision, finding no statutory basis to restrict the special prosecutor’s power to higher courts only and therefore the prosecution was permissible.

    Facts

    The case arose from charges against the defendant, an employee of the Finger Lakes Residential Center, related to an incident involving a 14-year-old resident. The special prosecutor for the Protection of People with Special Needs Act brought charges of endangering the welfare of a child and harassment in the second degree in Town Court. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the special prosecutor’s lack of authority to prosecute in Town Court. The Town Court agreed, but the County Court reversed, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Procedural History

    The case began in Town Court, where the defendant successfully argued for dismissal of the charges. The County Court reversed the Town Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the County Court’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Executive Law § 552 (2)(c) limits the special prosecutor’s authority to prosecute abuse and neglect cases exclusively in County and Supreme Courts, and before a grand jury, thereby prohibiting prosecution in local criminal courts?

    Holding

    1. No, because the Court of Appeals held that there is no indication within Executive Law § 552 (2)(c) that the special prosecutor’s powers are limited to the superior courts and grand jury proceedings.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the interpretation of Executive Law § 552 (2)(c). The court found that this section merely requires the special prosecutor to consult with the district attorney before appearing in County Court, Supreme Court, or before a grand jury. The court held that the statute’s language does not restrict the special prosecutor’s power to local courts. The court emphasized that the statute aimed to strengthen the state’s response to crimes against vulnerable persons and found no evidence that the legislature intended to limit the special prosecutor’s authority in local courts. The court affirmed the County Court’s interpretation that Section 552 (2) (c) constituted “an additional grant of authority permitting participation in and prosecution of felonies before the grand jury and the appropriate superior court.”

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies the scope of the special prosecutor’s authority under the Protection of People with Special Needs Act. It reinforces that the special prosecutor can prosecute cases in local criminal courts, which broadens the state’s capacity to address abuse and neglect of vulnerable persons. This case impacts how cases involving vulnerable individuals should be analyzed, specifically when determining the appropriate court for prosecution. It will likely lead to more cases being brought in local courts and a more expansive view of the special prosecutor’s role in combating crimes against vulnerable individuals. Further, this case provides a specific instance where the legislature can create an office with concurrent powers with an elected official so long as it does not diminish the core responsibilities of the elected official. This case supports the notion that the special prosecutor could appear in local court cases without district attorney consent, so long as such action does not interfere with the district attorney’s prosecution duties.

  • People v. Carver, 27 N.Y.3d 420 (2016): Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Requires Demonstrable Prejudice

    People v. Carver, 27 N.Y.3d 420 (2016)

    To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his attorney failed to pursue suppression motions and provide adequate representation at sentencing. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that any alleged errors prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court emphasized the need for a showing that counsel’s actions were not strategic and that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the alleged errors. The court declined to second-guess strategic decisions made by counsel, particularly where the record did not support a suppression motion or where the defendant’s own statements at sentencing limited counsel’s options.

    Facts

    Police stopped a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger, observing items obstructing the windshield, a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant and the driver provided false identification and information, and appeared nervous. The officer found duffel bags in the car containing a laptop and gloves. After the driver fled, the officer found the defendant attempting to exit the car. A subsequent search revealed a stolen camera on the defendant and other stolen items in the vehicle. The defendant was charged with burglary, and a jury found him guilty.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, rejecting the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek suppression of evidence due to the legality of the traffic stop and the subsequent “pat down.”
    2. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during sentencing.

    Holding

    1. No, because the record did not support a colorable argument to suppress evidence and the failure to pursue suppression could have been a strategic decision by counsel.
    2. No, because counsel provided reasonable representation at sentencing, given the defendant’s own statements and the record.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court applied the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring the defendant to show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. The court found no basis to conclude that a suppression motion would have succeeded, as the traffic stop was based on a valid Vehicle and Traffic Law violation. The court noted that “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to ‘make a motion . . . that has little or no chance of success.’” Furthermore, the court reasoned that even if a colorable challenge existed, counsel may have made a legitimate strategic decision not to pursue the motion. Regarding the sentencing claim, the court held that counsel’s actions were reasonable, considering the information available and the defendant’s own statements denying involvement, limiting defense counsel’s options.

    Practical Implications

    This case underscores the high bar for proving ineffective assistance of counsel. Attorneys should be aware that they are not required to make every possible motion, especially those with little chance of success. Strategic decisions, even if they appear questionable in hindsight, are generally protected unless they are clearly unreasonable. When assessing potential ineffective assistance claims, courts will evaluate the reasonableness of counsel’s actions under the circumstances and the likelihood that a different outcome would have resulted. Clients should be advised that strategic decisions by counsel will not be second-guessed, and to provide counsel with all relevant information to make appropriate decisions.

  • People v. Mack, No. 74 (N.Y. 2016): Preservation Required for Claims of Improper Jury Note Response When Counsel Has Meaningful Notice

    <strong><em>People v. Mack, No. 74, 27 N.Y.3d 15 (2016)</em></strong>

    When the trial court provides meaningful notice to counsel of jury inquiries and its intended responses, any claim of error regarding the court’s failure to respond to a jury note before taking a verdict must be preserved by objection.

    <strong>Summary</strong>

    In *People v. Mack*, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court’s failure to respond to substantive jury notes before accepting a verdict constituted a mode of proceedings error, thus not requiring preservation by objection. The court held that where defense counsel had meaningful notice of the jury’s inquiries and the court’s intended actions, the failure to object to the procedure resulted in a forfeiture of the right to appeal that issue. The Court distinguished this situation from one where the court fails to provide meaningful notice of a jury inquiry, which constitutes a mode of proceedings error. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing the importance of the preservation rule to encourage timely error correction and prevent strategic manipulation of the appeals process.

    <strong>Facts</strong>

    The defendant was charged with gang assault. During deliberations, the jury sent multiple notes requesting instructions on reasonable doubt and witness testimony, and also requested a smoking break. The court read the notes aloud in the presence of counsel and defendant, stating its plan to re-read instructions. However, before providing the responses, the jury sent a note that they had reached a verdict. The court, after an off-the-record discussion, brought the jury back, took the verdict, and polled the jury without responding to the earlier notes or inquiring whether the jury still desired a response. Defense counsel did not object. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a mode of proceedings error. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.

    <strong>Procedural History</strong>

    The trial court found the defendant guilty. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court’s failure to respond to the jury’s substantive requests before accepting the verdict constituted a mode of proceedings error. The dissenting justice would have affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    <strong>Issue(s)</strong>

    1. Whether the trial court’s failure to provide a meaningful response to substantive jury notes before accepting the verdict constituted a mode of proceedings error, thereby excusing the need for preservation through objection.

    <strong>Holding</strong>

    1. No, because defense counsel had meaningful notice of the jury’s inquiries and the trial court’s intended course of action, the failure to respond to the jury’s notes before accepting the verdict did not constitute a mode of proceedings error and thus required preservation.

    <strong>Court’s Reasoning</strong>

    The court relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 310.30, which requires meaningful notice of jury inquiries. The court distinguished between (1) the trial court’s failure to provide meaningful notice of the jury’s substantive inquiries, which constitutes a mode of proceedings error, and (2) the trial court’s failure to meaningfully respond to those inquiries, where meaningful notice had been given. Citing prior case law such as *People v. O’Rama*, the court found that providing counsel with meaningful notice meant that the court must inform counsel of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request. In Mack, the court found that counsel had meaningful notice of the jury’s inquiries. The Court also noted that mode of proceedings errors are a “very narrow exception” to the preservation rule and must go “to the essential validity of the process and [be] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted.” The court reasoned that in this case, counsel had the knowledge needed to object, and a timely objection could have easily resolved the issue. Further, the court stated that a contrary ruling would incentivize defense attorneys to make strategic choices to create appellate issues. The court emphasized that the error did not prevent the defendant from participating meaningfully in the trial.

    <strong>Practical Implications</strong>

    This case underscores the importance of timely objections in criminal trials. Attorneys must be vigilant in preserving the record, even when the trial court’s actions appear to be in error. The holding clarifies that when counsel has meaningful notice of a jury’s inquiry and the trial court’s planned response, failure to object to the response procedure forfeits the right to appeal. It directly impacts how attorneys should respond to jury notes and court procedures during deliberations. Lawyers must be prepared to object when necessary to preserve claims for appeal, understanding that silence, even when an error appears to have occurred, can be fatal to an appeal. Later cases will likely cite *Mack* for the rule that a trial court’s unresponsiveness to a jury’s note is not a mode of proceedings error where defense counsel had meaningful notice and the opportunity to object.

  • People v. Reynolds, No. 78 (N.Y. 2016): Validity of Plea Agreements Conditioned on Presentence Incarceration

    People v. Reynolds, No. 78 (N.Y. June 7, 2016)

    A plea agreement that includes an illegal condition, such as presentence incarceration lacking statutory authority, renders the plea invalid.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the validity of a plea agreement where the defendant’s sentencing was conditioned on a period of presentence incarceration. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his claim that his plea should be vacated. The court distinguished this case from previous rulings, finding that the defendant’s challenge was based on a violation of a lawful, not an illegal, presentence condition (being arrested). The dissent argued that the presentence incarceration lacked statutory basis and rendered the plea invalid, and that the defendant’s claim was preserved despite the lack of objection before sentencing. The dissenting opinion argued that the six months of presentence incarceration was punitive, rather than rehabilitative and therefore illegal.

    Facts

    Baasil Reynolds was indicted on charges of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing. After approximately six months of pre-plea incarceration, he agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge with delayed sentencing, conditioned on his compliance with specific terms. The conditions included an additional six months of incarceration, followed by release on his own recognizance with the restriction that he not be arrested or violate any orders of protection. Reynolds served the additional six months. However, he was arrested on the day of his sentencing. After an Outley hearing, the court imposed the originally promised two-to-four-year sentence. Reynolds appealed, claiming his plea was invalid due to the additional incarceration, but the lower court upheld the original plea agreement.

    Procedural History

    Reynolds accepted a plea agreement, which the trial court approved. He subsequently appealed this plea after the trial court imposed sentence after he failed to comply with conditions, which was upheld by the Appellate Division. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Reynolds preserved his claim that his plea should be vacated due to the allegedly illegal presentence incarceration condition.
    2. Whether the trial court’s findings at the Outley hearing were sufficient.

    Holding

    1. No, because Reynolds did not object to the plea before sentencing, and he did not challenge an illegal sentence, the claim was not preserved.
    2. Yes, the trial court’s findings at the Outley hearing were sufficient.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The majority determined that Reynolds did not preserve his claim challenging the plea’s validity because he did not move to withdraw the plea before sentencing. The court distinguished this case from prior cases where an illegal sentence was imposed. The court found that Reynolds’ sentence was lawful. The court also affirmed the trial court’s findings from the Outley hearing, stating that the court properly determined there was a legitimate basis for Reynolds’ arrest, which was enough to uphold the initial plea.

    The dissent argued the plea was invalid because the presentence incarceration lacked statutory authorization and thus was an illegal condition. The dissent argued that the court could consider the claim because the condition imposed was illegal. It cited People v. Rodney E. and People v. Avery, where the court considered claims of illegal presentencing conditions, even without a pre-sentencing objection. The dissent emphasized that the presentence incarceration was not authorized by any statute, and thus was illegal.

    Practical Implications

    This case highlights the importance of preserving challenges to plea agreements before sentencing to protect the possibility of appeal, and that in New York, claims of illegal sentences, or even those resulting from illegal conditions, are more likely to be reviewed on appeal than those where only an illegal condition, but not the sentence itself, is challenged. Attorneys must carefully examine the conditions of plea agreements to ensure they are authorized by law, and to challenge any unauthorized conditions before sentencing to preserve the client’s rights. Courts must ensure that any presentence conditions are authorized by law and appropriately related to rehabilitation or lawful conduct. Further, the case offers insights for criminal defense attorneys on distinguishing between an illegal sentence versus an illegal condition for purposes of preservation on appeal. Finally, this case demonstrates the importance of the Outley hearing and how a court must evaluate the basis of an arrest to satisfy the conditions imposed post-plea.

  • People v. Greenberg, 26 N.Y.3d 495 (2015): Availability of Equitable Relief Under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12)

    26 N.Y.3d 495 (2015)

    Under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12), the Attorney General may seek permanent injunctive relief upon showing a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains is also an available remedy.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals considered whether the Attorney General could seek equitable relief, specifically permanent injunctive relief and disgorgement, under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12). The court held that the Attorney General could pursue permanent injunctive relief upon demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation and that disgorgement is an available remedy. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that irreparable harm needed to be shown for injunctive relief and that disgorgement was not authorized or was preempted by federal law. The case clarified the standards for obtaining equitable remedies in actions brought by the Attorney General to combat fraud in securities offerings.

    Facts

    The Attorney General brought an action against former officers of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) under the Martin Act (General Business Law art 23-A) and Executive Law § 63(12). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that equitable relief was not warranted on the facts, that disgorgement was not a remedy under the Martin Act or Executive Law § 63(12), and that disgorgement was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which had previously considered a related appeal involving the same case.

    Procedural History

    The Attorney General initiated the action. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted the defendants leave to appeal and certified a question regarding the propriety of the lower court’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Attorney General must show irreparable harm to obtain a permanent injunction under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12).

    2. Whether disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12).

    Holding

    1. No, because the requirement of irreparable harm does not apply to permanent injunctions under these statutes.

    2. Yes, because the Martin Act contains a broad residual relief clause, and disgorgement is an appropriate remedy in such cases.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals first addressed the standard for obtaining a permanent injunction, holding that the Attorney General does not need to show irreparable harm, unlike in the case of a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the focus of the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12) is preventing fraud and defeating exploitation, and the standards of the public interest, not private litigation, measure the need for injunctive relief. The court distinguished the current case from precedent on preliminary injunctions, which incorporate the CPLR’s irreparable harm requirement, whereas permanent injunctions do not.

    The court then addressed the availability of disgorgement as a remedy. The court emphasized the broad, residual relief clause in the Martin Act. The court noted that disgorgement requires the return of wrongfully obtained profits and is an equitable remedy that is distinct from restitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that disgorgement was barred by the Supremacy Clause or was waived by the Attorney General.

    The court referenced the prior decision that had already addressed the issue of whether equitable relief was available in the first instance. In this appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that equitable relief was available, and issues of fact prevented summary judgment.

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies the Attorney General’s ability to seek equitable remedies, like injunctions and disgorgement, in cases of securities fraud under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12). The ruling reinforces the broad authority granted to the Attorney General to protect the public and deter fraudulent practices. Attorneys litigating cases under the Martin Act should understand that permanent injunctive relief does not require a showing of irreparable harm. Furthermore, this case supports the availability of disgorgement as a potential remedy in securities fraud cases, even if not explicitly mentioned, provided the recovery is limited to the defendants’ unjust gains. This also has implications for the analysis of cases where the Attorney General seeks civil penalties or other equitable relief.

  • People v. Hull, 27 N.Y.3d 1057 (2016): Lesser Included Offense and Jury Instructions

    People v. Hull, 27 N.Y.3d 1057 (2016)

    A trial court may submit a lesser-included offense to the jury if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense.

    Summary

    In this case, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court properly submitted a lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree to the jury when the defendant was charged with second-degree murder. The defendant argued that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that he intended only to injure the victim, not to kill him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the trial court was correct in submitting the lesser-included offense because the evidence, including the defendant’s testimony and the circumstances surrounding the shooting, could have led the jury to conclude that the defendant intended only to cause serious physical injury, not death. The court also addressed an unpreserved claim of juror misconduct.

    Facts

    The defendant, after a history of arguments with his downstairs neighbor, shot and killed the neighbor with a handgun. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant’s prior arguments with the victim, their verbal altercation just before the shooting, and the defendant retrieving a loaded handgun. The defendant testified he did not intend to kill the victim, but merely wanted to stop the victim’s

  • People v. Rossborough, 24 N.Y.3d 486 (2014): Felony Defendant’s Right to Waive Presence at Sentencing

    24 N.Y.3d 486 (2014)

    A defendant in a felony case may expressly waive the right to be present at sentencing if the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to a felony could waive their right to be present at sentencing. The court held that an express waiver of this right is permissible, provided the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court distinguished this from implied waivers and noted that, like other fundamental rights, the right to be present at sentencing can be relinquished. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, which upheld the defendant’s sentence in absentia after he explicitly requested and received permission to waive his presence at sentencing.

    Facts

    The defendant faced multiple charges across three counties and pleaded guilty in Wyoming County to grand larceny in the third degree (a class D felony). As part of a plea agreement, the defendant was to be sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of 3 to 6 years, concurrent with existing sentences. At the plea proceeding, the defendant, after being informed of the right to be present at sentencing, explicitly requested to waive his personal appearance at sentencing, which the court granted. The defendant’s attorney appeared at the sentencing, and the court imposed the agreed-upon sentence.

    Procedural History

    The County Court sentenced the defendant in absentia based on his prior express waiver. The Appellate Division upheld the sentence, finding that the defendant had waived his right to be present. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a felony defendant may waive the right to be present at sentencing.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because a defendant may expressly waive the right to be present at sentencing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court analyzed Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 380.40, which mandates a defendant’s presence at sentencing with specific exceptions. However, the court noted the statute does not provide a similar exception for felony defendants. The court also recognized the common law rule and previous cases that allowed waiver if done knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The Court distinguished this case from *People v. Stroman*, where the court declined to find an implied waiver when the defendant was sentenced in absentia because there had been no effort to inform him of his right to be present. The Court of Appeals cited that “waiver results from a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision”. The court reasoned that the right to be present at sentencing, while fundamental, is not among those rights that cannot be waived, especially when the defendant is receiving the sentence to which they agreed in the plea bargain. This principle aligns with the court’s recognition of waivers for other fundamental rights like the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel.

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies that a felony defendant can waive their right to be present at sentencing if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. It provides guidance to trial courts when dealing with defendants seeking to waive their presence at sentencing hearings. It also highlights the importance of a clear record showing the defendant was fully informed of their right and made an informed decision. The ruling provides a practical framework for courts in similar situations where a defendant, as part of a plea agreement, seeks to be sentenced in absentia.

  • Plotch v. Citibank, N.A., 26 N.Y.3d 480 (2015): Consolidation Agreements as “First Mortgage of Record” under the Condominium Act

    26 N.Y.3d 480 (2015)

    A consolidation agreement that merges two mortgages into a single lien recorded before a condominium board’s common charges lien qualifies as the “first mortgage of record” under Real Property Law § 339-z, taking priority over the common charges lien.

    Summary

    In Plotch v. Citibank, N.A., the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a consolidated mortgage, recorded before a condominium board’s lien for unpaid common charges, qualified as the “first mortgage of record” under Real Property Law § 339-z. The court held that the consolidation agreement did qualify, thereby giving the consolidated mortgage priority over the condominium’s lien. The court emphasized that the consolidation created a single mortgage lien, recorded before the condominium’s lien, and that to rule otherwise would undermine the practical realities of refinancing and contradict the intent of the statute.

    Facts

    Citibank extended a mortgage to a condominium unit owner, which was recorded. A year later, a second mortgage was extended, and the two were consolidated into a single mortgage lien. The consolidation agreement was recorded. Seven years later, the condominium board filed a lien for unpaid common charges. The plaintiff purchased the unit in a foreclosure action, subject to the “first Mortgage of record against the premises.” The plaintiff sought a declaration that the second mortgage was subordinate to the condominium board’s lien. Citibank argued the consolidation agreement was the first mortgage of record.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted Citibank’s motion, declaring the consolidation agreement the first mortgage of record. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a consolidation agreement that merges two mortgages recorded before a condominium board’s common charges lien qualifies as the “first mortgage of record” under Real Property Law § 339-z.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the consolidation agreement created a single mortgage lien, recorded before the common charges lien, which takes priority.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied on Real Property Law § 339-z, which grants a condominium board a lien for unpaid common charges that has priority over all other liens except for, among other things, the “first mortgage of record.” The court observed the chronological order of recording generally determines lien priority. The court examined consolidation agreements and determined that they are instruments of convenience and can retain their separate lien status when there is an intervening lien. However, where there is no intervening lien, the consolidation agreement is considered the “first mortgage of record.”

    The court rejected the argument that only the original first mortgage should have priority. The court reasoned that the consolidation created a single mortgage lien, recorded before the condominium’s lien, and therefore took priority. The court also considered the practical implications, noting that a contrary ruling would adversely affect homeowners’ ability to refinance and would lead to unnecessary steps to achieve the same result through satisfying and replacing the original mortgage. The court emphasized that their ruling aligns with the statutory purpose of the Condominium Act, which seeks to stimulate building activity and allow for flexibility in obtaining mortgages.

    Practical Implications

    This case clarifies that a consolidation agreement, recorded before a condominium board’s common charges lien and absent an intervening lien, will be considered the “first mortgage of record,” taking priority over the common charges lien. This has significant implications for lenders, property owners, and condominium boards. Lenders can rely on the priority of their consolidated mortgages, while unit owners can more easily refinance. Condominium boards must recognize this priority when assessing the collectability of their liens. Attorneys handling foreclosure actions or disputes over lien priority must carefully review the recording dates of all relevant instruments, including any consolidation agreements, to determine lien priority.

    Meta Description

    The case establishes that a mortgage consolidation agreement, recorded before a condo association’s lien, maintains priority as the “first mortgage of record” under NY’s Condominium Act, impacting lien priority in foreclosure actions.

    Tags

    Plotch v. Citibank, Court of Appeals, 2015, Real Property, Condominium, Mortgage Consolidation, Lien Priority

  • Maron v. Silver, 17 N.Y.3d 471 (2011): Separation of Powers and Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislative Action

    Maron v. Silver, 17 N.Y.3d 471 (2011)

    A violation of the separation of powers doctrine by the legislature does not automatically entitle affected parties to monetary damages, particularly when the legislature has taken steps to remedy the constitutional violation.

    Summary

    This case concerns whether judges of the New York court system were entitled to monetary damages for the state legislature’s past practice of linking judicial compensation to unrelated policy initiatives, a practice the court found violated the separation of powers doctrine in a prior case. The court held that the judges were not entitled to damages, as the prior decision did not determine the judges were denied pay raises to which they were constitutionally entitled. The court reasoned that the primary violation was in the process of deliberation rather than in the ultimate compensation itself. Additionally, the court found that the legislature’s creation of an independent commission to address judicial compensation sufficiently remedied the constitutional violation, making monetary damages inappropriate. This reinforced the principle that damages are not an automatic remedy for separation of powers violations, particularly when the legislature takes action to correct the issue.

    Facts

    In Matter of Maron v. Silver, the New York Court of Appeals found the state legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine by tying judicial compensation to unrelated legislative initiatives. Following this decision, the legislature established an independent Commission on Judicial Compensation. Current and retired judges then sued, claiming they were entitled to damages for the pay raises they allegedly would have received absent the unconstitutional linkage during specific years. They argued the commission, which could recommend prospective raises, did not adequately remedy the past constitutional violation.

    Procedural History

    This case involves a consolidated appeal from the Appellate Division. The lower court decisions, dealing with the prior separation of powers violation and the remedy, were consolidated to determine the appropriateness of monetary damages for the judges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, denying the judges’ claim for monetary damages, further clarifying the appropriate remedy for separation of powers violations in the context of judicial compensation.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the judges were entitled to monetary damages as a remedy for the state legislature’s past violation of the separation of powers doctrine by linking judicial compensation to unrelated policy initiatives.
    2. Whether the establishment of an independent Commission on Judicial Compensation adequately remedied the prior constitutional violation.

    Holding

    1. No, because the prior ruling did not determine judges were deprived of constitutional rights to specific pay raises; the violation was in the process.
    2. Yes, because the creation of the independent Commission on Judicial Compensation sufficiently addressed the separation of powers violation by ensuring future independent consideration of judicial compensation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning centered on the scope of the prior ruling in Matter of Maron, where the court found that the legislature’s *process* of determining judicial compensation violated the separation of powers, but did not rule on whether judges were entitled to specific pay increases. The court noted, “…we did not declare the State’s failure to raise judicial pay in the linkage period to be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.” The Court of Appeals held that the establishment of the Commission, which allows for independent consideration of judicial compensation, remedied the constitutional issue. “[W]e recognized in Matter of Marón that damages were not an appropriate cure for the State’s unlawful deliberative approach.” The court emphasized that monetary damages would improperly intrude on the legislative branch’s budgetary power and would be tantamount to directing a pay raise. The court also emphasized that the separation of powers violation in this case did not fit the typical requirements for a damages award, such as inadequacy of alternative remedies or historical recognition of the remedy.

    Practical Implications

    This case provides critical guidance on the scope of remedies for separation of powers violations, particularly in matters involving judicial compensation. It clarifies that monetary damages are not automatic and that a court will consider whether the legislature has taken corrective actions. The ruling underscores the court’s reluctance to interfere with the legislative power of the purse. This means attorneys should carefully analyze the nature of the constitutional violation and whether the legislature has taken remedial steps before seeking monetary damages. Additionally, the ruling reinforces that when the issue is how compensation is determined, the Court may defer to the Legislature in order to maintain the separation of powers.