New York Law Review

Tag: Timely objection

  • People v. Garay, 24 N.Y.3d 64 (2014): Preservation of Right to Counsel and Courtroom Closure Procedures

    People v. Garay, 24 N.Y.3d 64 (2014)

    To preserve a claim of deprivation of the right to counsel for appellate review, a defendant must object at the time of the alleged violation, when the trial court has an opportunity to correct the error.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed three claims in this case: a Sixth Amendment right to counsel violation due to the replacement of a sick juror; a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial violation due to courtroom closure during testimony of undercover officers; and denial of a suppression hearing. The court held that the right to counsel claim was not preserved for appellate review due to a lack of timely objection. The court also upheld the courtroom closure, finding that the trial court was not required to explicitly state on the record the alternatives considered, so long as the record established the need for closure. Finally, the court upheld the denial of a suppression hearing, finding that the defendant’s assertions were insufficient to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing under CPL 710.60.

    Facts

    Benny Garay was tried with co-defendant Rivera for drug-related offenses. During the trial, a juror called in sick, prompting the judge to replace the juror with an alternate. Garay’s counsel was not present during the initial discussion of the replacement, but was present when the alternate juror was seated. During trial, the courtroom was partially closed during the testimony of two undercover officers. The court had conducted a Hinton hearing and allowed the defendant’s family members to attend. The police, investigating a drug operation, arrested Garay and found cocaine on his person. Garay moved to suppress the evidence, claiming lack of consent and probable cause. The trial court denied the motion.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Garay of criminal possession of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when a sick juror was replaced with an alternate juror.

    2. Whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by the partial courtroom closure during the testimony of undercover officers.

    3. Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s request for a suppression hearing.

    Holding

    1. No, because the claim was not preserved for appellate review due to the defense counsel’s failure to object.

    2. No, because the trial court considered the alternatives to closure sufficiently.

    3. No, because the defendant’s motion papers did not contain sufficient factual allegations to warrant a hearing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court held that the defendant’s right to counsel claim was unpreserved because defense counsel was present when the alternate juror was seated, and did not object to the replacement. The court cited CPL 470.05(2), which requires a timely protest to preserve a claim of error. The court distinguished the situation from cases where counsel was absent when the alleged deprivation occurred, and thus could not object. For the courtroom closure issue, the court found the trial court’s closure was proper, as the record supported the need for closure and the court had allowed family members to attend. The court reaffirmed People v. Echevarria, which held that a trial court need not explicitly state the alternatives considered. Finally, regarding the suppression hearing, the court referenced CPL 710.60 and People v. Mendoza. Defendant’s assertion of innocent conduct at the time of arrest, without refuting the allegations of the drug conspiracy, did not establish entitlement to a hearing.

    Practical Implications

    This case underscores the importance of timely objections to preserve legal arguments for appeal. Attorneys must be vigilant in raising objections when potential errors occur in the presence of the court to ensure their clients’ rights are protected. The case confirms the standard in New York for courtroom closures, holding that a trial court does not need to explicitly enumerate alternatives considered, as long as the record supports the necessity of closure. The case also reinforces the requirements for suppression motions, emphasizing that such motions must contain sworn factual allegations sufficient to raise a legal basis for suppression. This highlights the need for attorneys to present specific factual challenges to establish grounds for a suppression hearing.

  • Harris v. Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 N.Y.3d 155 (2005): Consequences of Failing to Purchase a New Index Number

    Harris v. Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 N.Y.3d 155 (2005)

    Under New York’s commencement-by-filing system, failing to purchase a new index number when initiating a lawsuit is a waivable defect if the defendant does not timely object; timely objection to the defect requires dismissal.

    Summary

    Plaintiff Harris allegedly sustained injuries and attempted to commence a personal injury action against the Niagara Falls Board of Education, Niagara Falls City School District, and the driver, Granto. Harris used an index number from a prior special proceeding related to a late notice of claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the failure to purchase a new index number meant the action was not properly commenced before the statute of limitations expired. The Court of Appeals held that while the failure to purchase a new index number doesn’t deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendants’ timely objection required dismissal of the complaint.

    Facts

    On May 2, 2002, Harris was allegedly injured by a vehicle driven by Granto. Because Harris did not serve a notice of claim within 90 days as required by General Municipal Law, he initiated a special proceeding in April 2003, obtaining an index number. In June 2003, the court granted permission to file a late notice of claim against the City of Niagara Falls. Later, Harris, through new counsel, brought a second proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the school board and school district, using the same index number. The court ordered that the notice of claim be served and the personal injury action commenced by July 30, 2003. Harris then initiated the personal injury action, filing a summons and complaint but using the index number from the previous late notice of claim applications.

    Procedural History

    Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211. Supreme Court initially denied the motion, relying on Otero v. New York City Housing Authority. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the lack of a new index number. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the plaintiff’s failure to purchase a new index number when commencing a personal injury action, after having used an index number from a prior special proceeding, is a fatal defect requiring dismissal, given the defendants’ timely objection.

    Holding

    Yes, because strict compliance with CPLR 304 and the filing system is mandatory, and the defendants timely objected to the defective filing. While the failure to purchase a new index number is a waivable defect, the timely objection necessitates dismissal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the commencement-by-filing system as outlined in CPLR 304 and 306-a, stating that an action is initiated by paying the fee, obtaining an index number, and filing the initiatory papers. Citing Matter of Gershel v. Porr, the court reiterated that “service of process without first paying the filing fee and filing the initiatory papers is a nullity, the action or proceeding never having been properly commenced.” The Court also clarified that, according to Matter of Fry v. Village of Tarrytown, a defect in compliance is waivable if not timely objected to. “Strict compliance with CPLR 304 and the filing system is mandatory, and the extremely serious result of noncompliance, so long as an objection is timely raised by an appearing party, is outright dismissal of the proceeding” (Fry, 89 NY2d at 723). The Court distinguished this case from Otero, where the defendant did not timely object. Because the defendants in this case timely objected, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 304 required dismissal. The court noted that the rule strikes a balance: plaintiffs are deterred from carelessness by strict construction of the rules, while defendants must promptly object to capitalize on technicalities. The key factor was the timely objection, which triggered the mandatory dismissal.

  • People v. Bongiorno, 85 N.Y.2d 923 (1995): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    85 N.Y.2d 923 (1995)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection during trial.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired after a motorcycle accident that resulted in his wife’s death. He was acquitted of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the criminally negligent homicide conviction and that the relation-back testimony regarding his blood alcohol level was inadmissible. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these issues for review because he did not make timely and specific objections at trial. The Court also found no merit to the defendant’s other claims.

    Facts

    The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident resulting in his wife’s death. The defendant was subsequently indicted for vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Following the accident, the defendant’s blood alcohol level was tested.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was tried before a jury. The jury acquitted him of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence but convicted him of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the criminally negligent homicide conviction were preserved for appellate review.

    2. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the admissibility of relation-back testimony concerning his blood alcohol level was preserved for appellate review.

    3. Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to certain evidentiary rulings.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

    2. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the admissibility of the relation-back testimony.

    3. No, the Court found no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that because the defendant failed to make a timely specific objection at trial to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for criminally negligent homicide and to the admissibility of relation-back testimony regarding the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident, these points were not preserved for the Court’s review. The court cited People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, and People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, to support this holding. The court emphasized the importance of raising objections at trial to give the lower court an opportunity to address the issues. Regarding the other evidentiary rulings, the Court found no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial. The Court noted that testimony regarding the defendant’s attempts to avoid giving an adequate breath sample was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt, especially considering the trial court’s limiting instructions. Furthermore, any error in reporting the defendant’s blood alcohol level beyond the second decimal point was deemed harmless because the defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired, which does not require a specific blood alcohol level. The court cited Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(c). Finally, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that he was not given an individualized sentence. The court in People v. Gray stated, “The main purposes of the preservation requirement, informing the court of the objection as well as affording the opportunity to cure the error, and of the contemporaneous objection rule, are advanced by requiring that the basis of the objection be apparent, either from its face, or from the context.”

  • People v. Montesano, 54 N.Y.2d 736 (1981): Preserving Issues for Appeal

    People v. Montesano, 54 N.Y.2d 736 (1981)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection on the record during the trial court proceedings.

    Summary

    Montesano was convicted of grand larceny and offering a false instrument for filing related to Medicaid fraud. The Appellate Division reversed, citing the erroneous admission of an auditor’s testimony. The Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s appeal because the Appellate Division’s reversal was based on grounds for which no timely objection had been made at trial, thus failing to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that its dismissal did not endorse the Appellate Division’s legal rulings.

    Facts

    The defendant was indicted for grand larceny and multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing. The prosecution alleged that the defendant stole over $250 by filing false Medicaid claim forms that overstated patient visits. The defendant was convicted after a jury trial.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Montesano. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, holding that the testimony of an auditor from the Medicaid Fraud Unit was erroneously admitted. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division’s reversal was based solely on questions of law for which proper objections were made at trial, thereby establishing the jurisdictional predicate for an appeal to the Court of Appeals under CPL 450.90(2).

    Holding

    No, because the Appellate Division’s reversal was based, in part, on grounds for which timely objections were not made at trial. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of a jurisdictional predicate.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division’s reversal was based on three grounds: (1) the subject matter of the auditor’s testimony did not require expertise; (2) the testimony impermissibly bolstered the credibility of other witnesses; and (3) the testimony invaded the province of the jury. However, the record showed that the defense only objected to the auditor’s testimony at trial on the grounds that it was an “improper intrusion of the province of this jury.” Because objections on the first two grounds were not timely raised at trial, the Appellate Division’s decision was not based solely on questions of law properly preserved. The Court of Appeals emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals where the reversal below is based on the law alone or on the law and such facts that would not have led to the reversal absent the legal error. Because the Appellate Division relied, in part, on unpreserved errors, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The court cited People v. Dercole, 52 N.Y.2d 956, stating that because the court had not reached the merits, its disposition did not endorse the rulings in the opinion below.

  • Manglass v. General Motors Corp., 66 N.Y.2d 1 (1985): Inconsistent Verdicts and Preservation of Error

    66 N.Y.2d 1 (1985)

    When a jury renders apparently inconsistent verdicts, the inconsistency must be raised before the jury is discharged to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct the error; failure to do so forfeits the right to appellate review of the inconsistency.

    Summary

    In this product liability case stemming from a car accident, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether jury verdicts finding General Motors (GM) liable for negligence but not strictly liable were inconsistent. The Court held that because GM failed to timely object to the alleged inconsistency before the jury was discharged, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The court emphasized the importance of providing the trial court an opportunity to correct potential errors during the trial. The decision underscores the need for timely objections to preserve legal issues for appeal.

    Facts

    Gary Manglass, driving a Chevrolet Nova (owned by his wife, Janice), made a high-speed left turn, causing the car to weave and collide head-on with another vehicle. The accident injured Manglass and the occupants of the other car. Plaintiffs sued Gary Manglass and General Motors (GM), alleging negligence and strict products liability due to a defective engine mount in the Nova. Janice Manglass also sued GM for negligence and breach of warranty.

    Procedural History

    The jury found Gary Manglass and GM liable on the negligence claims, apportioning fault 35% to Manglass and 65% to GM. The jury found GM not liable on the strict products liability claim. The jury also found against GM for the value of the Nova on Janice Manglass’ negligence and breach of warranty claims. GM argued the verdicts were inconsistent but only after the jury was discharged. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and GM appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the jury verdicts finding GM liable for negligence but not strictly liable were inconsistent.

    2. Whether the verdict for Janice Manglass on her breach of warranty claim was inconsistent with the verdicts on the strict products liability cause of action, and whether that inconsistency was properly preserved for appellate review.

    Holding

    1. No, because the alleged inconsistency was not raised before the jury was discharged, thus precluding appellate review.

    2. No, because GM failed to raise this inconsistency before the jury was discharged, thereby failing to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that an inconsistency exists only when a verdict on one claim necessarily negates an element of another. Examining the trial court’s charge, the court noted that to find GM liable on the strict products liability claims, the jury had to find both a defect and that the Nova was not being misused. The negligence charge did not require an absence of misuse. Because GM did not object to this charge, it became the law of the case. The Court stated, “A finding by the jury that Gary Manglass misused the Nova in making the high-speed turn would account for the differing verdicts on the negligence and strict products liability causes of action, and the verdicts were therefore not inconsistent.”

    Regarding the breach of warranty claim, the Court held that GM waived its right to challenge the alleged inconsistency because it failed to raise the issue before the jury was discharged. By failing to do so, GM deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct the error by resubmitting the matter to the jury. The Court quoted: “[The function of a timely exception] is to give the court and the opposing party the opportunity to correct an error in the conduct of the trial.”

  • People v. De Renzis, 51 N.Y.2d 426 (1980): Requirement for Timely Objection to Preserve Right to Counsel Claim

    People v. De Renzis, 51 N.Y.2d 426 (1980)

    A defendant must make a timely objection to a trial court’s ruling that allegedly interferes with the right to counsel to preserve the issue for appellate review as a question of law.

    Summary

    De Renzis was convicted of second-degree murder. During the trial, the judge instructed the defendant and his counsel not to discuss the defendant’s testimony during recesses. Defense counsel did not object at the time. Later, counsel protested, arguing his client’s right to counsel was being violated. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding a denial of the right to counsel. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the failure to timely object to the trial court’s restriction on communication between the defendant and his attorney waived the right to raise the issue on appeal. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider exercising its discretionary power to review the alleged error in the interest of justice.

    Facts

    De Renzis was on trial for the murder of Sandra Zahler.
    During De Renzis’s direct testimony, the trial judge instructed De Renzis and his counsel not to discuss his testimony during recesses.
    Defense counsel did not object to these instructions at the time they were given.
    The following day, defense counsel requested to speak with his client and protested that his client’s right to access counsel was being interfered with.
    The court initially denied the request but later reversed its ruling and allowed the consultation.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted De Renzis of second-degree murder.
    The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, concluding that De Renzis had been denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel.
    The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the conviction, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s failure to timely object to the trial court’s instructions prohibiting communication between the defendant and his counsel during recesses waived the right to raise the issue on appeal as a question of law.

    Holding

    No, because to preserve a question of law for appellate review, a protest must be registered at the time of the ruling or when the court has an opportunity to change it. Counsel’s silence when the instruction was given constituted a waiver of the claim.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party claiming error must register a protest at the time of the ruling or at a subsequent time when the court has an opportunity to change it, as per CPL 470.05(2). The court distinguished this case from People v. Arthur and People v. Felder, where the absence of counsel at a critical time was determinative. Here, counsel was present and could have objected to the trial court’s instructions. The court stated that “[t]o create and preserve a question of law amendable to appellate review, a defendant in a criminal case normally must raise that issue before the court of original jurisdiction.” The court emphasized the importance of a timely protest, stating it affords the trial court an opportunity to correct the error. The Court found that the belated protest on the following day was insufficient to preserve the error related to the prior day’s restrictions because the court had already acted, and counsel’s silence implied acceptance of the court’s instruction. As the Appellate Division’s reversal was based at least in part on the June 14 rulings, the case was remitted to that court to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review alleged errors even absent a timely objection. The Court of Appeals explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of De Renzis’s right to counsel claim, focusing solely on the procedural issue of preservation.

  • People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745 (1982): Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

    People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745 (1982)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise a specific objection at trial when the error can still be corrected.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction. The Court held that several of the defendant’s claims were not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to raise specific objections during the trial when the alleged errors could have been addressed. This case emphasizes the importance of timely and specific objections to preserve legal issues for appeal.

    Facts

    The defendant, Satloff, was convicted on multiple counts after a jury trial. During the trial, certain evidence and testimony were presented, and the defendant now claims these were admitted in error. Specifically, the defendant argued (1) failure of proof that a conversation occurred; (2) error in refusing an offer of proof from a judicial witness; and (3) that the jury verdicts were “repugnant”.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the conviction was affirmed. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant had failed to preserve several issues for appellate review.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the failure of proof that a conversation occurred was preserved for appellate review, given the absence of a specific objection at trial.

    2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s offer of proof from a proposed judicial witness.

    3. Whether the defendant’s claim that the jury verdicts were repugnant was preserved for appellate review, given the failure to object before the jury was discharged.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to specifically object to the lack of proof of the conversation at trial.

    2. No, the Court of Appeals did not find the trial court’s refusal to admit the testimony of the judicial witness to be in error.

    3. No, because the defendant failed to raise an objection regarding the alleged repugnancy of the verdicts before the jury was discharged.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant did not properly preserve the issue regarding the lack of proof of the conversation because the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was general and did not specifically reference this deficiency. The Court cited People v. Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33, 2. Further, the defendant did not protest the trial court’s omission to charge the jury regarding the need for such proof. The Court noted that this argument was first raised on a motion for reargument in the Appellate Division, which is too late to preserve an issue for appeal.

    Regarding the offer of proof from the judicial witness, the Court stated simply, “We cannot say that it was error to refuse the offer of proof made by defendant with respect to the testimony of the proposed judicial witness.”

    Finally, concerning the claim of repugnant verdicts, the Court emphasized that the defendant failed to object before the jury was discharged. This prevented the trial court from resubmitting the case to the jury for reconsideration, which would have been the appropriate remedy had the issue been raised in a timely manner. The Court cited People v. Bruckman, 46 NY2d 1020. The Court stated, “The contention that the verdicts of the jury were ‘repugnant’ was not preserved for our review in consequence of the failure to register any protest concerning this issue prior to the discharge of the jury when the infirmity in the verdicts, if any, might have been remedied by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdicts.”

  • People v. Maschi, 49 N.Y.2d 785 (1980): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Maschi, 49 N.Y.2d 785 (1980)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial; a general objection is insufficient if the party later raises a different theory of error on appeal.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for further consideration. The central issue was whether the prosecutor improperly impeached a defense witness. The Appellate Division believed the cross-examination was unfair and warranted a new trial. However, the Court of Appeals found that the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection during the cross-examination, thus not preserving the issue for appellate review. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review the claim despite the lack of proper objection.

    Facts

    During the trial, the defense called an eyewitness to the defendant’s arrest. The prosecutor cross-examined the witness about their failure to report exculpatory information to law enforcement or the District Attorney’s office prior to the trial testimony. The prosecutor asked approximately 19 questions on this topic without objection. Only after the 20th question did defense counsel offer a simple “objection.”

    Procedural History

    The trial court overruled the defense’s objection. The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the cross-examination was improper and impinged on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant preserved the issue of improper cross-examination of a defense witness for appellate review by making a timely and specific objection at trial.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to make a timely or specific objection to the prosecutor’s line of questioning, thereby failing to preserve the error, if any, for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must register a timely and effective protest. Here, the defense counsel’s objection came only after a significant line of questioning had already occurred without objection. The court noted, “After the prosecutor, without objection, had asked some 19 questions relevant to the failure of the witness to come forward, when he asked the twentieth, capping question defense counsel interposed an unembellished ‘objection’ which was overruled.” Furthermore, the Court pointed out that when the objection was finally made, defense counsel did not assert the specific theory of error that he later advanced on appeal. The Court cited 22 NYCRR 604.1 [d] [4], which addresses the requirements for preserving objections. Because the issue was not properly preserved, the Court remitted the case to the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review the defendant’s claim despite the lack of adequate protest. The court explicitly stated, “In this procedural posture, the case must be remitted to the Appellate Division for that court to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review defendant’s claim of reversible error in the absence of adequate protest and, if it so determines, then to rule thereon”.