People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 921 (1979)
A reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which objection is not taken presents no questions of law for appellate review by the Court of Appeals.
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal because the Appellate Division’s reversal, though stated to be on the law, was actually based on an asserted repugnancy of the trial court’s verdicts, a point to which timely objection had not been made. The Court of Appeals held that such a reversal does not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate for review, which requires a determination made on the law alone or on the law and such facts that would necessitate reversal regardless of the legal determination. Because the issue was unpreserved, no question of law was presented for the Court of Appeals to review.
Facts
The specific facts of the underlying criminal trial are not detailed in the Court of Appeals memorandum opinion. The core issue stems from the defendant’s trial, where the jury rendered a verdict that the Appellate Division deemed repugnant.
Procedural History
The trial court rendered a verdict. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that the reversal was “on the law.” However, the Court of Appeals determined that the Appellate Division’s reversal was based on the repugnancy of the verdicts, an issue not properly preserved at trial. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division’s reversal, ostensibly on the law but actually based on an unpreserved error (repugnancy of verdicts), presents a question of law reviewable by the Court of Appeals.
Holding
No, because a reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which objection is not taken presents no questions of law for appellate review in the Court of Appeals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the principle that appellate review is limited to questions of law that have been properly preserved. CPL 450.90(2) requires that the Appellate Division’s determination to reverse be made on the law alone, or on the law and such facts which, absent the legal determination, would still lead to reversal. The court emphasized that because a timely objection to the alleged repugnancy of the verdicts was not made at trial, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. Citing People v. Johnson, the court stated that a reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which no objection was taken presents no question of law for the Court of Appeals. The court also referenced People v. Cona, reinforcing the principle that the Court of Appeals’ review cannot extend beyond the singular point of law regarding preservation, and the case may be remitted to the Appellate Division for discretionary review if appropriate. The court explicitly stated that its dismissal did not imply endorsement of the Appellate Division’s rulings.