In today’s New York Criminal Caselaw Roundup we’ll be discussing the latest in developments of New York criminal law, criminal appeals, and post-conviction relief.

Cases that we’ll cover include Murder For Hire, Conspiracy to Murder and Kidnap in a Foreign Country, Causing Death with a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, Brady, exculpatory information, Brady evidence, Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, Speedy Trial, Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, premises liability, summary judgment, juvenile offender, Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, de facto life sentence and more.

The New York Criminal Caselaw Roundup is a blog and video podcast by criminal defense and appeals lawyers Jason L. Russo and Steven J. Gaitman summarizing the latest developments in criminal law, criminal appeals, and post-conviction relief in the State of New York.  Each week we digest the latest reversed convictions throughout the New York Appellate Divisions and the New York Court of Appeals, as well as the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

This is a FREE service designed to give you the cutting edge of developments in New York criminal law, appeals, and post-conviction relief.

Visit us at www.notguiltyli.com

COURT OF APPEALS

No decisions reported

FIRST DEPARTMENT

No reversals reported.

SECOND DEPARTMENT

CLICK TO READ Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Docket # 2018-07386

In this case, the Second Department addresses whether a “targeted” attack by a perpetrator against a victim on premises, as distinguished from a “random” attack on premises, is, by definition, an independent intervening cause that insulates the property owner from liability for negligent security measures, as a matter of law.

The Second Department certifies a conflict with the First Department, and holds that in certain circumstances, the issue of proximate causality may present a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.

In this case, the decedent lived with her fiancée and her four children in 2005-2006.  They broke up, and the ex-boyfriend began stalking her after the decedent moved into a building owned and maintained by the NYC Housing Authority.  The door to the front building was unlocked, as the lock was broken and never repaired.  As a result, the ex-boyfriend gained entrance, attacked the decedent, and killed her by pouring lighter fluid on her and burning her to death in the hallway of the building. 

The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that the targeted attack was an independent intervening cause of her death, which broke the causal nexus between any negligence of NYCHA in failing to maintain an operable lock on the building’s door.

The trial court denied NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, concluding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, NYCHA fulfilled its duty to provide a safe environment given the volume of crime activity in the area, and whether the often-broken door lock could be negligence proximately related to the occurrence. 

The Second Department affirmed, breaking with First Department precedent.

THIRD DEPARTMENT

No reversals reported.

FOURTH DEPARTMENT

No reversals reported.

SECOND CIRCUIT

CLICK TO READ United States v. Carl David Stillwell, et. al, Docket # 18-3074, 18-3489, 19-790

In this unusual case, the Defendants appeal from a conviction after trial for Murder For Hire, Conspiracy to Murder and Kidnap in a Foreign Country, Causing Death with a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering.  After the initial appeal was filed, the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (“NDDS”) of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a notice in this Court in October 2018, advising the Clerk of Court that the District Court had entered a sealed protective order upon an ex parte motion by the NDDS, which barred prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and defense counsel from reviewing certain documents.  Later the Second Circuit ordered those materials released, and subsequently they were disclosed to the Defendants as Brady material.

The Defendants then filed supplemental briefs, arguing that the prosecution withheld exculpatory material.  The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to review the Brady claims.

BONUS DECISIONS

CLICK TO READ People v. Jonathan Hines, Docket # 2019BX023653 (2021 NY Slip Op 50050(U))

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, motion granted.  Defendant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol pursuant to VTL § 1192.3 and 1192.1 after he was stopped and blew a .069 BAC on a breath test.

In this case, the Bronx Criminal Court resolved two issues – whether the People should be charged for any time after March 20, 2020 when New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.8 which tolled the speedy trial clock, and how the People should be charged after January 1, 2020 when the new speedy trial provisions went into effect.

The Court ruled that the People would be charged from January 1, 2020 through January 15, 2020 because the new statute went into effect, untolling the 30.30 speedy trial clock.   Here, the People never filed a Certificate of Compliance under the new discovery statute. 

The Court held that the People would not be charged after March 20, 2020, because the Executive Order tolled the 30.30 Speedy Trial clock.  In the end, that did not matter because more than 90 days elapsed. 

Motion granted, case dismissed.

CLICK TO READ People v. Jose Lora, Indictment # 9482-94 (2021 NY Slip Op 21011)

CPL § 440.20 motion to vacate a sentence as unconstitutional pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193L.Ed 599 (2016).

Defendant was 17 years old when he committed three homicides and other related crimes in 1994 of shooting rivals of a drug-trafficking gang.  Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive 25-Life sentences and one consecutive sentence of 8 1/3 – 25 for conspiracy to commit Murder in the Second Degree for a total of 58 1/3 – Life, and later sentenced to a separate consecutive sentence of 25-Life after a third murder conviction.

Defendant argued that his sentences amount to a de facto life sentence without parole, which is prohibited for an offender under 18.  After a hearing, the Manhattan Supreme Court granted the motion in part and ordered resentencing.  The court focused on the Defendant’s age of 40 years, the fact that he had served 23 years of a sentence already, and his life expectancy.  It found that his original sentence of 58 1/3 – Life was not a de facto life sentence, and was appropriate for his crimes. 

However, with respect to the last consecutive 25-Life sentence, the motion was granted because that did amount to a de facto life sentence.

GENERAL SEARCH TERMS

Jason Russo, Steve Gaitman, Jason L. Russo, Steven J. Gaitman, Jason Russo, Steve Gaitman attorney, Jason Russo, Steve Gaitman NY Attorney, Long Island Criminal Defense Lawyer, Long Island Criminal Defense Attorney, Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyer, Suffolk County Criminal Defense Attorney, Nassau County Criminal Defense Lawyer, Nassau County Criminal Defense Attorney, Gaitman & Russo, LLP, Criminal Defense lawyer, criminal defense attorney, Federal criminal defense lawyer, federal criminal appeal lawyer, New York criminal defense lawyer, New York Criminal Defense Attorney, New York Appeal Lawyer, New York Appeal Lawyers, New York Appeals Lawyer, New York Appeals Lawyers, New York criminal appeal lawyer, New York criminal appeal lawyers, New York criminal appeals lawyer, New York .criminal appeals lawyers, post conviction relief, post conviction relief lawyer, post conviction relief attorney, New York Appeal Attorney, New York Appeal Attorneys, New York Appeals Attorney, New York Appeals Attorneys, New York criminal appeal attorney, New York criminal appeal attorneys, New York criminal appeals attorney, New York criminal appeals attorneys, New York Appellate Lawyer, New York Appellate Lawyers, New York Appellate Lawyer, New York Appellate Lawyers, New York criminal appellate lawyer, New York criminal appellate lawyers, New York criminal appellate lawyer, New York criminal appellate lawyers, post conviction relief, post conviction relief lawyer, post conviction relief attorney, New York Appellate Attorney, New York Appellate Attorneys, New York Appellate Attorney, New York Appellate Attorneys, New York criminal appellate attorney, New York criminal appellate attorneys, New York criminal appellate attorney, New York criminal appellate attorneys,

SPECIFIC TERMS (TAGS)

Murder For Hire, Conspiracy to Murder and Kidnap in a Foreign Country, Causing Death with a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, Brady, exculpatory information, Brady evidence, Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, Speedy Trial, Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, premises liability, summary judgment, juvenile offender, Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, de facto life sentence