Criminal Proceedure

Published on: January 19, 2026

Prior Lineup Identification Testimony Was Improper. People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 710 N.E.2d 665, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1999)

by Stephen Bilkis

In People v. Patterson, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a robbery conviction that raised several evidence issues. The case centered on the use of identification testimony at trial after the grocery store owner who had identified the defendant in a lineup died before trial. The Court considered whether the prosecution could use a police officer to tell the jury about the owner’s earlier lineup identification under CPL 60.25. The case also involved questions about the foundation for a store surveillance videotape and a 911 recording. The appeal required the Court to examine the limits of prior identification evidence and the basic rules that govern the admission of recorded proof in a criminal case.

Background Facts

On March 2, 1993, three men entered a grocery store in Queens and carried out a robbery at gunpoint. The robbers took property from the store owner, John Cho, and from several customers. After the robbery, police investigated the case and later arranged a lineup. Several weeks after the crime, Cho identified Darren Patterson in that lineup as one of the men involved in the robbery.

Published on: January 19, 2026

Pre-Indictment Delay Did Not Violate Due Process. People v. Tyson, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01446 (N.Y. Mar. 17, 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

In People v. Tyson, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a delay between an alleged incident and a later indictment violated a defendant’s right to due process. The case focused on pre-indictment delay and the standards courts apply when deciding whether that delay was unreasonable. The Court reviewed the timeline of events, the actions taken by law enforcement and prosecutors, and the legal framework governing claims based on delay before formal charges are filed.

Background Facts

On December 25, 2021, Kenneth Tyson was incarcerated at Collins Correctional Facility when correction officers conducted a welfare check. During that encounter, Tyson allegedly threw a liquid substance at an officer. The substance struck the officer and was later described as smelling like feces. The officer felt ill but did not suffer injury. The incident was documented by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and the officer’s uniform was sent for testing shortly afterward. In February 2022, a request was made to speed up the testing process. In May 2022, the testing confirmed the presence of urine.

Published on: January 12, 2026

Probation Not Tolled Without Declaration. People v. Curry, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01448 (N.Y. Mar. 17, 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

In People v. Curry, the New York Court of Appeals examined whether a court retained jurisdiction to revoke probation after the probation period had expired. The case turned on the statutory rules governing probation, including when a probation term may be interrupted and what steps a court must take when a violation is alleged. The appeal required the Court to interpret provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law that address declarations of delinquency and the timing of probation revocation proceedings.

Background Facts

In April 2016, Eugene Curry pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On July 5, 2016, he was sentenced to five years of probation and additional conditions. His probation term was set to expire on July 5, 2021. In January 2018, the Office of Probation filed an Information for Delinquency, claiming that Curry had failed to comply with the conditions of his probation and asking the court to declare him delinquent. Curry appeared in court in January 2018 regarding those claims, but the court did not issue a declaration of delinquency.

Published on: January 5, 2026

Depraved Indifference Supported by Driving Conduct. People v. Bender, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01586 (N.Y. Mar. 17, 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

In People v. Bender, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree. The case focused on whether the evidence at trial supported a finding that the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life. The Court also considered whether the trial court properly limited the defendant’s ability to present psychiatric evidence due to a failure to comply with notice requirements under CPL 250.10. The appeal raised questions about the level of proof required for depraved indifference and the balance between a defendant’s right to present a defense and the need for fair notice to the prosecution.

Background Facts

The case arose from a series of events involving the defendant’s driving over a short distance in a populated area. At trial, the People presented testimony from multiple witnesses who observed the defendant operating a vehicle in traffic. Witnesses stated that the defendant moved between lanes and struck several vehicles. The events took place over about three-tenths of a mile.

Published on: June 15, 2020

Court Reverses Lower Court Decision Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence – People v Page 2020 NY Slip Op 03265

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the Court of Appeals considered whether the lower court rightly relied on the decision in People v Williams, 4 NY3d 535 [2005] as the basis for granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered in the vehicle search.

In People v. Williams, two officers of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority were on patrol in one of that city’s housing projects when they observed the defendant driving without a seat belt. The officers found that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and arrested him. The defendant moved to have the cocaine suppressed. Under New York law, the housing authority officers are considered peace officers. However, the arrest of the defendant occurred outside of the officers’ geographical area of employment. The People argued that the arrest was a citizen’s arrest. The court rejected the People’s argument and granted the defendant’s motion because the Housing Authority officers were not acting as citizens but were acting under the color of the law. Because the arrest occurred outside of the officers’ area of authority, it was not valid.

The events that led to the arrest of the defendant in People v. Page began when a federal marine interdiction agent, using the emergency lights on this truck, stopped the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger due to erratic driving. The driver pulled over the vehicle and the marine agent, who sat in his truck behind the pulled over vehicle, contacted Buffalo Police. Under New York law, federal marine interdiction agents are not classified as peace officers.

Published on: June 8, 2020

Court of Appeals Upholds Lower Court Decision Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence – People v Williams, 4 NY3d 535 (2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the Appellate Division considered whether it the Supreme Court appropriately granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss drug and traffic charges based on an arrest by Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority officers.

Two officers of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority were on patrol in one of that city’s housing projects when they observed the defendant driving without a seatbelt. Even though the scope of employment of those officers did not extend to the area where they stopped and questioned the defendant, the officers did so anyway. Under New York law, officers of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority are classified as peace officers. They found that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and arrested him. The defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and several violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The defendant moved to have the charges dismissed on the basis that the arrest of the defendant occurred outside of the officers’ geographical area of employment. As a result, the officers lacked jurisdiction to make the arrest. The People countered by arguing that if the officers were acting outside of their jurisdictional authority, the arrest was still valid because the officers made a citizen’s arrest. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the charges. The People appealed.

Published on: May 11, 2020

Sentencing Court Erred in Unsealing the Court Record Related to a Different, Unrelated Proceeding – People v Anonymous, 2020 NY Slip Op 01113

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to sentencing in a criminal case, a court is not allowed to consider a proceeding in which the defendant was ultimately acquitted or that was otherwise resolved in favor of the defendant. In this case the Court of Appeals considered whether the Appellate Division properly concluded that the defendant in a criminal possession of a controlled substance case was not entitled to resentencing when the sentencing court improperly considered unsealed records related to another criminal proceeding that resulted in the defendant being acquitted.

In this drug crime case, the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. The deal he struck with the prosecution was that in exchange for pleading guilty he would receive a sentence of four years of imprisonment followed by three years of post-release supervision. However, there was a condition to the defendant receiving this sentence: he had to stay out of trouble. In other words, if the defendant committed another crime, the sentencing agreement was void.

Before the sentencing hearing the defendant was again arrested and was prosecuted for another crime. Had he been convicted, this would have been an obvious violation of the plea agreement. However, he was ultimately acquitted and the transcript of the trial was sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. Under New York’s sealing law, under certain circumstances a criminal record is hidden from public view and from most government agencies. However, law enforcement can access the records, as can the courts and certain agencies.

Published on: April 27, 2020

Court Rejects Defendant’s Claim that Sentence Was Too Lenient – People v Francis 2020 NY Slip Op 00996

by Stephen Bilkis

It may seem odd that a defendant would challenge a sentence in a criminal case on the ground that it was too lenient. However, that is exactly what happened in People v Francis. What makes this case even more odd is that the defendant moved to set aside a sentence that he already served nearly 30 years prior to when he filed the motion.

In 1988 the defendant was sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. In 2015, pursuant to CPL 440.20, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the sentence on the ground that it was illegally lenient. In addition to the 1988 conviction, over 15 year period the defendant had been convicted other crimes, but under aliases, including a 1982 nonviolent felony conviction. As a result, he received sentences that were more lenient than they should have been given his true criminal history.

In 1997 the defendant was again arrested. This time, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, a violent felony. Based on his 1988 conviction as well as a 1991 conviction, the defendant was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender and was sentenced to 23 years to life in prison.

Published on: March 30, 2020

Court Concluded that Defendant’s Right to a Speedy Trial Was Violated- People v. Watson, 975 N.Y.S.2d 369 (2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a drug possession case where the court had to decide whether the defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated, the court also examined the distinction between a criminal complaint and an information.

On October 23, 2012, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a felony, in violation of Penal Law §220.06(2). The defendant allegedly was in possession of Hydrocodone and Alprazolam pills. On October 25, 2012, because there was no lab evidence confirming the type of drug that the defendant allegedly possessed, the charge was reduced to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, a Class A misdemeanor under New York Penal Law §220.03. When the charge was reduced, the court marked the accusatory instrument a misdemeanor complaint. Nearly 5 months later, in March 2013, the defendant’s case had not been brought to trial.

New York’s speedy trial rules required that if the charge is a felony, the case must be ready for trial within 6 months. For class A misdemeanors the case must be ready for trial within 90 days, while for class B misdemeanors, the case must be ready for trial within 60 days. The time period runs from when the original complaint was filed. Where as in People v. Watson a felony complaint is replaced with a new accusatory instrument charging a misdemeanor, the prosecution must be ready for trial within 90 days from the filing of the new instrument or 6 months from the filing of the felony complaint, whichever is shorter.

Published on: December 18, 2018

New York Appellate Court Rules that Grand Jury Can’t Readdress Issue After Being Dismissed in Prior Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

(People v. DA, NY Slip Op 08537)

December 13, 2018

In this case, the court weighs the question regarding whether the grand jury can readdress a charge that has been presented to it after it had been dismissed in a prior proceeding. The court held that a charge may not be resubmitted to another grand jury pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 190.75(3).