text:
    [12 NE3d 1107, 989 NYS2d 678]
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Sidney Wisdom, Respondent.
    Argued May 6, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Ann Bordley and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for appellant.

      Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (De Nice Powell of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the judgment of conviction reinstated, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court.

Defendant Sidney Wisdom attempted to kill a four-year-old girl and her grandmother (whom we refer to as Jane) during a residential burglary. Due to the severity of Jane’s injuries, the People obtained a court order to videotape her testimony for later presentation to a grand jury. In her recorded interview, Jane unequivocally identified defendant as the assailant and stated that she knew him from prior contacts. However, she was not administered an oath to tell the truth, an oversight that was not realized by the prosecutor until after the grand jury had viewed the video. In an attempt to rectify this omission, the court authorized a second recorded examination in which Jane swore to be truthful and declared that her prior testimony had been accurate. The grand jury was shown the second video and defendant was indicted for various crimes, including first-degree burglary and attempted second-degree murder.

Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that Jane’s failure to take the required oath during her original interview compromised the integrity of the grand jury. Supreme Court rejected that argument and a jury convicted defendant of attempting to intentionally murder Jane and the child. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the grand jury proceeding was defective because the People presented Jane’s unsworn recorded testimony and the second videotaped examination did not cure the error (98 AD3d 241 [2d Dept 2012]). A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (19 NY3d 1106 [2012]) and we now reverse.

The People initially argue that defendant’s motion to dismiss was untimely under CPL 255.20 (1) because the issue regarding the oath was not raised until after the People presented their proof at trial. We disagree. Defendant timely challenged the indictment in this case because he was not aware of the operative facts until after his omnibus motion had to be filed (see CPL 255.20 [1], [3]) and there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s finding that he had good cause to seek dismissal after receiving the videos of Jane’s interviews. Even though the jury’s verdict was premised on sufficient trial evidence (see CPL 210.30 [6]), the issue is reviewable because defendant claims that the failure to swear Jane before her initial recorded statement caused her testimony to be legally invalid, thereby creating a fundamental defect in the grand jury proceeding (see e.g. CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 108-109 [1984]; Peter Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 210.30 at 222).

The People do not dispute that an oath should have been administered to Jane during the first testimonial recording (see e.g. CPL 60.20 [2]; 190.32 [5] [e]; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 45 [1976]). On these facts, however, the error does not meet the “very precise and very high” statutory standard of impairment for grand jury proceedings (People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 455 [1990]; see e.g. People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409 [1996]). The lack of an oath was not the product of a nefarious design to deliberately cause unfairness to defendant. Rather, it was an oversight that the People sought to correct by securing judicial permission to record a second interview in which Jane swore to be honest and verified the truth of her prior statements. The grand jury then watched the second video and was instructed that the recording was made because Jane had not taken an oath during her first examination. Based on these circumstances, defendant has not established a possibility of prejudice justifying the exceptional remedy of dismissal of the indictment (see e.g. People v Adessa, 89 NY2d 677, 686 [1997]; People v Thompson, 22 NY3d 687, 699 [2014]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

Order reversed, judgment of conviction reinstated, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court, in a memorandum.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    [12 NE3d 1109, 989 NYS2d 680]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sharmelle Johnson, Appellant.
    Argued May 1, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Lauren Stephens-Davidowitz and Sara Gurwitch of counsel), for appellant.

      Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Andrew E. Seewald and Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion to vacate his plea granted, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

Defendant was indicted on two counts of rape in the first degree and one of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The victim did not have a recollection of the alleged rape, or of any interaction with defendant. She remembered drinking in a bar; her next recollection was of going home in a disheveled condition, without her cell phone and some other property. After arriving home, she found indications that she had been sexually assaulted. Her cell phone was traced to defendant, and semen from a rape kit matched defendant’s DNA.

The rape charges against defendant were based on the theories that he had used forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and that his victim was incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless (Penal Law § 130.35 [2]). On either theory, the crime was a class B felony.

After extensive plea bargaining, defendant pleaded guilty to a class D felony, rape in the second degree as defined in Penal Law § 130.30 (2), committed when a person “engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of being . . . mentally incapacitated.” “Mentally incapacitated,” as defined by Penal Law § 130.00 (6), “means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent.” The statute was apparently aimed primarily at rapists who use “date-rape” drugs. There is no indication in the record that this victim was incapacitated by anything other than voluntary intoxication.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that defendant actually committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty. That in itself would not make his plea invalid. Where a defendant enters a negotiated plea to a lesser crime than one with which he is charged, no factual basis for the plea is required (People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]; see also People v Moore, 71 NY2d 1002, 1006 [1988]). Indeed, under such circumstances defendants can even plead guilty to crimes that do not exist (People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150, 153 [1967] [plea to attempt to commit a crime of which intent is not an element]).

It seems, however, that at the time of defendant’s plea counsel and the court were unaware of the rule of Clairborne, and thought it necessary to find a basis in fact for the plea. The court led defendant through an allocution in which he admitted that he encountered the victim when she was “too drunk to really make a decision about whether she did or did not want to have sex”; that he knew that “she was mentally incapacitated apparently from drinking”; and that he “went ahead and had sexual intercourse with her anyway.” The allocution provided no support for the idea that the victim was mentally incapacitated as the Penal Law defines that term.

Before being sentenced, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, asserting among other things that he “was not fully aware of the circumstances involved” and “is not guilty of the offense(s) to which he plead [sic].” That is essentially the argument that defendant makes here, and we reject the People’s suggestion that his claim is unpreserved. Supreme Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant on his conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence (People v Johnson, 99 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2012]).

We conclude that we must reverse and vacate the plea. Although the entire allocution was unnecessary, and although even if it were necessary we would not require that it prove every element of the crime charged (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]), we simply cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned (see People v Worden, 22 NY3d 982, 985 [2013] [allocution “emblematic of a general misconception”]). Apparently the court and counsel believed, mistakenly, that it was necessary to put on the record facts showing that the victim was mentally incapacitated; and they apparently also believed, equally mistakenly, that they had done so. It is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed, defendant’s motion to vacate plea granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.


text:
    [11 NE3d 1112, 989 NYS2d 9]
    Joseph Catalano et al., Appellants, v Laurie Tanner, Individually and Doing Business as Dan’s Restaurant, Respondent.
    Decided June 5, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Shaw & Shaw, P.C., Hamburg (Jacob A. Piorkowski of counsel), for appellants.

      Barth Sullivan Behr, Buffalo (Laurence D. Behr of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied. Defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law concerning the reasonableness of her inspection practices.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    In the Matter of Kelly S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. A copy of the brief must be served and an original and two copies filed within seven days.


text:
    In the Matter of Kelly S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by CAMBA Legal Services for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. A copy of the brief must be served and an original and two copies filed within seven days.


text:
    In the Matter of Kelly S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by Bill Perkins et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. A copy of the brief must be served and an original and two copies filed within seven days.


text:
    In the Matter of Kelly S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by Letitia James et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank International,” New York Branch, Respondent, v Francisco Javier Herrera Navarro, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted March 17, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion to expand the record denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Frederick Franklin, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole Appeals Unit, Respondent.
    Submitted April 14, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 862 (2014)].


text:
    Leonard Hutchinson, Appellant, v Sheridan Hill House Corp., Respondent.
    Submitted April 28, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion to vacate this Court’s March 11, 2014 dismissal order granted [see 22 NY3d 1154 (2014)].


text:
    In the Matter of Numrich Gun Parts Corporation, Appellant, v Peter M. Rivera, as Commissioner of Labor, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 21, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Gonzalez, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Inoa, Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and John R. Lewis, Esq., 36 Hemlock Drive, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clemon Jones, Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and John A. Cirando, Esq., care of D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., 101 South Salina Street, Syracuse, New York 13202 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jafari Lamont, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marquan M., Appellant.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by Advocates for Children of New York et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Quadean Morrison, Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Rivera, Appellant.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rasaun Sanders, Also Known as Boo Cracks, Appellant.
    Submitted May 28, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion to dismiss appeal denied.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hakim B. Scott, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Howard S. Wright, Appellant.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David M. Kaplan, Esq., 2129 Five Mile Line Road, Penfield, New York 14526 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    Emily Pines et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.
    Decided June 5, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.


text:
    Joseph W. Powers, Appellant, v 31 E 31 LLC et al., Respondents.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    W & W Glass, LLC, Respondent, v 1113 York Avenue Realty Company LLC et al., Appellants, and Sota Glazing, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted April 7, 2014;
    decided June 5, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    [13 NE3d 660, 990 NYS2d 160]
    Guillermo Robles, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.
    Decided June 10, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Bragoli & Associates, P.C., Melville (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.

      Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York City (Joseph C. Fegan of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied. The Appellate Division improperly concluded that defendant was entitled to summary judgment, as defendant failed to show that it was prejudiced by any defect in plaintiffs notice of claim (see generally General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]), and triable issues of fact remain.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    John L. Bell, Individually and as Shareholder of Norpco Restaurant, Inc. and Butcher Block of Albany, Inc., Appellant, v David R. White et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 21, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Robert Butler et al., Appellants, v City of Rye Planning Commission et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 28, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by City of Hudson. First Church of God in Christ, Inc., Appellant; City of Hudson, Respondent.
    Decided June 10, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    Miriam Delgado, Appellant, v Markwort Sporting Goods Company et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)
    Submitted May 28, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion from the order of the Appellate Term (see CPLR 5602 [a]).


text:
    Colleen Derby, Appellant, v Fabian Bitan, Respondent.
    Decided June 10, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    In the Matter of Michael A. Goldstein et al., Appellants, v Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 10, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    Michael Kuney, Appellant, v Angie Christian et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 28, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it (see NY Const, art VI, § 3; CPLR 5602).


text:
    In the Matter of James McNulty et al., Appellants, v Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 10, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Scott Myers, Appellant, v Michael Spitz, Respondent.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 865 (2014)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Town Sports International, LLC, Respondent, v Ajilon Solutions, Appellant.
    Submitted April 14, 2014;
    decided June 10, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (see Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1995]).


author: Smith, J.

text:
    [14 NE3d 377, 991 NYS2d 24]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamel Walston, Appellant.
    Argued May 7, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.

      Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Rhea A. Grob and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by vacating defendant’s conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, with leave to the People to resubmit that charge to a grand jury, and remitting to Supreme Court for resentencing on defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and, as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant was indicted on one count each of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [intentional murder]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3] [possession of a loaded firearm]), after he shot the victim five times, killing him. At the conclusion of proof at trial, the court granted defense counsel’s request to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1] [intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, and causing the death of such person]). The court instructed the jury on counts of second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and second-degree weapon possession, and, as relevant here, gave an expanded intent charge that applied with equal force to the murder and manslaughter counts.

During deliberations, the jury sent a note that read: “Power Point - Judge[’]s directions on Manslaughter/Murder in the Second Degree - (Intent).” The court apprised counsel that the jury “want[ed] the Judge’s directions on manslaughter and murder in the second degree,” but did not mention the note’s “intent” language. After the jury entered the courtroom, the court again paraphrased the note by stating “you have asked for a read back of manslaughter and murder” and gave the standard charges for each crime. The jury acquitted defendant of murder but found him guilty on the manslaughter and weapon possession counts.

On appeal, defendant claimed that the trial court’s handling of the jury note violated the procedure delineated in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]). The Appellate Division concluded that defendant’s O’Rama argument was unpreserved and that the claimed error did not constitute a mode of proceedings error (101 AD3d 1156, 1157-1158 [2d Dept 2012]).

CPL 310.30 requires that when the trial court receives a request “for further instruction or information with respect to the law,” the court must give notice to the People and the defense. We explained in O’Rama that such notice must be “meaningful,” i.e., that the parties receive “notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request,” because “counsel cannot participate effectively or adequately protect the defendant’s rights if this specific information is not given,” nor is counsel able “to evaluate the inquiry and the proper responses in light of the defendant’s interests” absent such notice (O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277 [citations omitted; emphasis supplied]). “Meaningful notice” to counsel of the note’s content, and a “meaningful response” to the jury’s request, comprise the trial court’s core responsibilities (People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 [2007]). To assist the trial court in meeting those responsibilities, we outlined a suggested procedure for the court’s handling of jury notes when it receives a substantive written jury communication: the court should mark the note as a court exhibit and read it into the record before the jury is called in (thereby ensuring adequate appellate review); afford counsel an opportunity to suggest responses to the note; inform counsel of the substance of the court’s proposed response (thereby giving counsel an opportunity to suggest appropriate modifications before the jury is returned to the courtroom); and read the note aloud in open court before the jury so that any inaccuracies may be corrected by the individual jurors (see O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277-278).

The Appellate Division erred in concluding that defendant was required to preserve his O’Rama argument. We have acknowledged that some departures from O’Rama procedures are subject to our rules of preservation, such as where the court reads the “entire content” of the note verbatim in open court prior to responding to the jury (see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 693-694 [2013]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995] [court read the entire content of the notes in open court]; People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801, 803 [1993] [requiring application of traditional preservation rules where defense counsel was present, was given notice of the contents of the written inquiry and participated in formulating responses thereto]). In such cases, although there has been a deviation from procedure, preservation is required where it is evident from the record that the trial court fulfilled its core responsibilities. When a court fails to fulfill those responsibilities, however, a mode of proceedings error occurs and departures from the O’Rama procedures are not subject to preservation rules (Kisoon, 8 NY3d at 135; O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 279).

Here, the trial court failed to meet its core responsibilities with regard to the note. Although there is record evidence that defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel. Rather, the record reflects that the court paraphrased the note for counsel and the jury, but in each instance it omitted any reference to the note’s “intent” language, hardly “a fair substitute for defense counsel’s own perusal of the communication” (O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277). Although the note is ambiguous concerning whether the jury was requesting an expanded definition of the intent element or was merely asking for a read back of the homicide charges which included a definition of intent, this only substantiates defendant’s argument that the court failed to meet its core responsibilities of providing defense counsel with meaningful notice and an opportunity to provide input so that the court could give the jury a meaningful response. Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note — as it is in this case — preservation is not required (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 852 [2009]). Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to (id.).

That does not mean, however, that defendant is entitled to vacatur of his conviction on the weapon possession count. In his written statement, which was read to the jury and admitted in evidence, defendant confessed to possessing a loaded firearm and shooting the victim. The People also presented evidence from a witness who testified that he had given defendant the revolver that defendant used moments before the shooting. Because the note at issue was addressed to an element relative to the homicide counts, and not to the weapon possession count, there was no danger of prejudice as it related to the latter count.

Smith, J.

(concurring). I join the Court’s memorandum opinion, which follows our case law in holding that an O’Rama error is a mode of proceedings error when a trial judge fails to disclose to counsel the full contents of a jury note. I add this concurring opinion to suggest that we should be willing to consider in the future an argument, not made here, that the cases so holding, including People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 279 [1991]) itself to the extent that it finds a mode of proceedings error, should be overruled. This idea finds support in some of our more recent jury note cases, which have taken a flexible approach to the mode of proceedings doctrine, and which may be read as eroding O’Rama’s force as precedent (People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824 [2010]).

The term “mode of proceedings error” — more precisely an error that affects “the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law” (People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]) — is used to identify a “very narrow exception” to the rule that errors made by a trial court may not be raised on appeal unless they are preserved at trial by timely objection (id.). A mode of proceedings error is found where a procedure is at such “basic variance with the mandate of law” that “the entire trial is irreparably tainted” (id. at 296). As we said in People v Becoats (17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011]): “Not every procedural misstep in a criminal case is a mode of proceedings error. That term is reserved for the most fundamental flaws.”

We held in O’Rama that a court’s failure to disclose the full text of a jury note to counsel fits within this “very narrow” category of “fundamental” error. Our reasoning on the subject consists of the following sentence:

“As a threshold matter, we note that the court’s error in failing to disclose the contents of the note had the effect of entirely preventing defense counsel from participating meaningfully in this critical stage of the trial and thus represented a significant departure from the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law” (O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

This cursory rationale does not seem very persuasive. It is not clear to me why O’Rama error is comparable to other errors we have identified as mode of proceedings error — e.g., trial by a jury of less than 12 (Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128, 135-139 [1858]), prosecution for an infamous crime in the absence of indictment by a grand jury (People ex rel. Battista v Christian, 249 NY 314, 318-321 [1928]), shifting the burden of proof to the defendant (Patterson, 39 NY2d at 296), and abdicating the judicial function to a law secretary (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 310-311 [1985]).

Of course, even if O’Rama was wrongly decided, that alone would not be sufficient reason to overrule it. The claims of stare decisis are stronger than that. But decisions that wrongly allow defendants to complain on appeal of minor errors to which they raised no objection are more harmful than many other mistaken decisions. I am not a stickler for the rigid application of the preservation rule; but it is one thing to be relatively flexible in the application of the rule, and another to abandon it altogether in a class of cases. To do so leads — as this case illustrates — to reversals based on errors that could easily have been cured if counsel had complained. Here, if counsel had simply said “May I see the note, Your Honor?,” the judge probably would have handed it to him, and the problem we now face would not exist.

Dispensing with the preservation requirement may also invite defense counsel to manipulate the system by remaining silent while error is committed, only to complain of it later (see Becoats, 17 NY3d at 651). O’Rama-type cases are a good illustration of this problem. When a trial judge makes the mistake of paraphrasing or summarizing a jury note, only a foolish defense lawyer will ask the judge to correct the error. The likelihood that knowing the verbatim contents of the note will enable counsel to get an acquittal or a hung jury is extremely small. But if the error remains uncorrected the lawyer has a near guarantee that any conviction will be reversed.

In general, we do not like overruling cases because the bar relies on the stability of our precedents. It is not clear to me, however, that anyone can legitimately rely on the rule that O’Rama error may be raised on appeal even when not objected to below. A lawyer might, as I have said, withhold an objection in reliance on O’Rama, in the hope of obtaining an undeserved reversal — but surely that is a kind of reliance that should not be encouraged.

The views I have just expressed can be no more than tentative. We have not had the benefit of briefing or argument on the issue of whether the mode of proceedings holding of O’Rama should be overruled. If the issue were briefed and argued, we would undoubtedly come to understand it more fully than we do now, and might well decide that overruling O’Rama is a bad idea. I raise the issue, however, in the hope that my musings will increase the likelihood that the issue will be presented to us in a future case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdtjs-Salaam concur; Judge Smith in a separate concurring opinion in which Judge Abdus-Salaam concurs.

Order modified by vacating defendant’s conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, with leave to the People, if they be so advised, to resubmit that charge to a grand jury, and remitting to Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.

       Defendant claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney should have requested that the court charge the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree. In light of our holding, we do not reach that issue.


text:
    [18 NE3d 377, 993 NYS2d 666]
    In the Matter of Thomas P. O’Neill et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Ann Pfau, as Chief Administrative Judge of the Office of Court Administration, State of New York—Unified Court System, Respondent-Appellant.
    Argued May 7, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Law Offices of David Schlachter, Uniondale (David Schlachter of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

      John W. McConnell, New York State Office of Court Administration, New York City (Lee Alan Adlerstein and Pedro Morales of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioners challenge certain administrative orders of the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York (CAJ) dated January 8, 2004 (AO/072/04) and December 22, 2004 (AO/534/04), and seek to compel the CAJ to pay New York State Court Officers employed in Suffolk County a salary increment reflecting a continuous service credit, in accordance with those orders. The January 2004 order abolished the position of Court Officer (a salary grade of JG-16) and replaced it with the new position of New York State (NYS) Court Officer (a salary grade of JG-17). The CAJ treated the new title as a reclassification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37 (5), rather than pursuant to section 37 (3) (c), or a reallocation pursuant to section 37 (11). As a result, petitioners did not receive the continuous service credit they would have received if the new title had been treated as a reallocation. The December 2004 order increased the salary grade of NYS Court Officer from JG-17 to JG-18, retroactive to January 8, 2004.

Petitioners allege that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37, both orders should have been treated as reallocations, not reclassifications. They claim that the January 2004 order denied them continuous service credit towards longevity increments for time worked in their former title, and that the December 2004 order adjusting their salary grade to JG-18, which was retroactive to January 8, 2004 rather than prospective, deprived them of salary increases to which they were entitled.

Petitioners’ challenge to the January 2004 order is time-barred. On April 7, 2004, employees whose title changed from Court Officer to NYS Court Officer received their first paychecks reflecting the increase to JG-17, without continuous service credit. The order impacted petitioners on that date, and thus they were aggrieved on that date (see generally Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714, 716 [1986]; see also Matter of Maurer v State Emergency Mgt. Off., 196 Misc 2d 750 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2003], affd 13 AD3d 751 [3d Dept 2004] [receipt of paycheck without overtime pay starts running of the statute of limitations for an article 78 proceeding to challenge failure to pay overtime]). Petitioners did not commence this proceeding until July 2005, more than one year after receiving their paychecks. Therefore, their claim regarding the January 2004 order is untimely (see CPLR 217).

Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, the December 2004 order did not extend the four-month limitations period in which they were required to challenge the earlier order. The January 2004 order involved the CAJ’s decision to eliminate the distinctions between officers in lower courts and superior courts, merge the titles of Court Officer and Senior Court Officer into the new title of NYS Court Officer, and create a new entry-level position. In contrast, the December 2004 order simply assigned a JG-18 grade for the new title of NYS Court Officer and thus “did not involve the sort of fresh, complete and unlimited examination into the merits as is necessary to extend the four-month limitations period” (Matter of Chisholm v Martinez, 277 AD2d 166, 167 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Finally, we agree with the Appellate Division that because the record contains no explanation or rationale for the retroactive application of the December 2004 order, petitioners have demonstrated their entitlement to the relief sought as to that order.

Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and AbdusSalaam concur; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.


text:
    Estelle A. Carr, Appellant, and Dennis Beaver, as Executor of Royce K. Hoffman, Deceased, Respondent, v Rose A. Caputo, Defendant, and Henry Alpizar et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 28, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Brenda Cornell, Respondent, v 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants, and 360 West 51st Street Corp., Appellant.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 22 NY3d 762 (2014)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Iain Curtis-Shanley, Appellant, v Bank of America, Respondent.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for reargument denied [see 22 NY3d 1133 (2014)].


text:
    Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, Respondent, v 106 Rockaway Owners Corp. et al., Defendants, and Anthony Modica, Appellant.
    Submitted April 14, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for ancillary relief dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion (see NY Const, art VI, § 3).


text:
    In the Matter of Gospel Faith Mission International, Inc., Respondent, v David P. Weiss, Chairman of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Karen Matseoane, Deceased. Karen Matseoane, Respondent, v Subtle Engineering Company, Appellant.
    Submitted April 28, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 1172 (2014)].


text:
    Errol McDonald, Appellant, v Edelman & Edelman, P.C., et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    James L. Melcher, Appellant, v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 23 NY3d 10 (2014)].


text:
    Nader & Sons, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Dan Shavolian, Also Known as Danny Shavolian, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted May 12, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    One Flint St., LLC, et al., Respondents, v Exxon Mobil Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard Mills, Appellant, v John Lempke, Superintendent, Five Points Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 28, 2014;
    decided June 12, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 864 (2014)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Pigott taking no part.


text:
    [16 NE3d 1243, 992 NYS2d 764]
    In the Matter of Kelley S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Decided June 26, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Gary R. Connor, General Counsel, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, appellant.

      Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, RC., Forest Hills (David I. Paul and Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for 232/242 Realty Co. LLC and others, appellants.

      Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation Legal Services, New York City (Kenneth N Rosenfeld and Matthew J. Chachére of counsel), for respondent.

      South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (Edward Josephson of counsel) and Adriene Holder, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Ellen Davidson of counsel), for Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development and others, amici curiae.

      Justin R. La Mort, Brooklyn, and Madeline La Forgia, for CAMBA Legal Services, Inc., amicus curiae.

      Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, New York City (Ronald S. Languedoc of counsel), for Bill Perkins and another, amici curiae.

      Adele Bartlett, Deputy General Counsel, Office of Manhattan Borough President, New York City, and Chaumtoli Huq, General Counsel for Litigation, Office of New York City Public Advocate, for Letitia James and others, amici curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying tenant’s petition for administrative review was not arbitrary or capricious, as tenant failed to set forth sufficient indicia of fraud to warrant consideration of the rental history beyond the four-year statutory period (see Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 366-367 [2010]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    [16 NE3d 1243, 992 NYS2d 765]
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jeffrey Johnson, Respondent.
    Decided June 26, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Richard J. Ramsay of counsel), for appellant.

      Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), appeal dismissed upon the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    [18 NE3d 739, 994 NYS2d 39]
    In the Matter of Pablo Costello, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Respondents.
    Argued June 5, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Alfred O’Connor, New York State Defenders Association, Albany, and Norman P. Effman, Public Defender, Warsaw, for appellant.

      Eric T Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Nancy A. Spiegel, Barbara D. Underwood and Andrea Oser of counsel), for respondents.

      Mayer Brown, LLP, New York City (Scott A. Chesin and Michael Ray field of counsel), for Robert Dennison and others, amici curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled, and petitioner’s parole reinstated.

The Executive Law requires the Board of Parole (the Board) to consider any victim impact statement in the decision to grant or deny parole release to an inmate (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Nonetheless, while it is undisputed that rescission proceedings were properly initiated here, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Board improperly rescinded petitioner’s parole release, which should be reinstated.

Our resolution of this case should not be interpreted as minimizing either the importance of victim impact statements in parole board hearings generally or the powerfully presented evidence of the grief and loss experienced by the family of the victim in this case. On the contrary, we hope that our decision will impel both parole boards and district attorneys to comply fully with the letter and spirit of Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A) (v) and CPL 440.50 (1), so that the effect of a crime on the victim and his or her family can be considered fully before a decision is made.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

Order reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled and petitioner’s parole reinstated, in a memorandum.


text:
    ACE Securities Corp., Appellant, v DB Structured Products, Inc., Respondent.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion by CXA-13 Corporation for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    ACE Securities Corp., Appellant, v DB Structured Products, Inc., Respondent.
    Submitted June 9, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion by the Association of Mortgage Investors for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Paul Shearman Allen, an Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Respondent.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).


text:
    In the Matter of Johnny Briggs, Respondent, v Angela Michele McKinney-Mays, Appellant.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Joseph J. Cassata, Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Pigott taking no part.


text:
    Jadwiga Dabrowski, as Surviving Spouse to Jozef Dabrowski, Deceased, Appellant, v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Respondent.
    Submitted April 7, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601). Motion for leave to appeal denied.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Evan E., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Susan F., Respondent. Ulster County Court Appointed Special Advocates, Nonparty Appellant. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.)
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.


text:
    Getty Properties Corp. et al., Respondents, v Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc., Defendant, and 1314 Sedgwick Ave. LLC et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Kayla LL. and Others, Alleged to be Abused and Neglected Children. Greene County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Joseph NN., Appellant.
    Submitted March 31, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Lynik Jomae E., Jr., an Infant. Lynik Jomae E., Appellant; Harlem Dowling Children’s Services, Respondent.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]).


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jarrod Brown, Respondent.
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Scott A. Rosenberg, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lee Carr, Appellant.
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Scott A. Rosenberg, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Conceicao, Appellant.
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Scott A. Rosenberg, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Denson, Appellant.
    Submitted June 9, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Graham, Appellant.
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Philip Rothschild, Esq., Hiscock Legal Aid Society, 351 South Warren Street, Syracuse, New York 13202 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devon Jones, Appellant.
    Submitted June 23, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Lashway, Appellant.
    Submitted June 9, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for poor person relief granted.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance J. Reed, Appellant.
    Submitted April 14, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for reargument denied [see 22 NY3d 530 (2014)].


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Patrick Thomas, Respondent.
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Scott A. Rosenberg, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ronald Jackson, Appellant, v Yolanda Canty, Warden, Respondent.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Steven C. Ridge, Appellant, v Alice Gold et al., Defendants, and Jay Braymiller, Respondent.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Robert L. Schulz, Appellant, v State of New York Executive et al., Respondents.
    (Index No. 4115-13.)
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie where the judgment appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (see Flushing Natl. Bank v City of New York, 38 NY2d 999 [1976]; NY Const, art VI, §§ 3 [b] [2]; 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).


text:
    Robert L. Schulz et al., Appellants, v New York State Executive et al., Respondents.
    (Index No. 1232-13.)
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, §§ 3 [b] [2]; 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).


text:
    Robert L. Schulz, Appellant, v Sheldon Silver, as Speaker of the State Assembly, Respondent.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, §§ 3 [b] [2]; 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).


text:
    In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique T., Appellant.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal, insofar as it seeks review of the February 27, 2014 Appellate Division order, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Defendant’s appeal from the February 27, 2014 Appellate Division order brings up for review only the prior nonfinal Appellate Division order entered January 26, 2012 (see CPLR 5601 [d]; 5501 [b]; Curiale v Ardra Ins. Co., 86 NY2d 774 [1995]; Matter of Greatsinger, 66 NY2d 680, 682-683 [1985]; Gilroy v American Broadcasting Co., 46 NY2d 580, 584 [1979]).


text:
    Michele Trezza, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the Appellate Division does not have the power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question from an order granting a new trial (see CPLR 5601 [c]; 5602 [b] [1]; Fishman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 78 NY2d 878 [1991]; Maynard v Greenberg, 82 NY2d 913, 915 [1994]), without prejudice to appellant stipulating in a timely fashion as determined by the Appellate Division to a reduced award for past pain and suffering and moving for leave to appeal at the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 5602 (a) (1) (ii) from the amended judgment entered on such stipulation.


text:
    Wells Fargo Bank, Appellant, v Lucina Hodge et al., Defendants, and Joseph Callender, Respondent.
    Submitted April 21, 2014;
    decided June 26, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Andrew E. Wisoff, Appellant, v City of Schenectady, Respondent.
    Decided June 26, 2014
   Appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the Supreme Court order denying reconsideration, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    [16 NE3d 1252, 992 NYS2d 773]
    Thomas Boyle et al., Appellants, v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Respondent.
    Decided June 30, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York City (Vano I. Haroutunian of counsel), for appellants.

      Polsinelli PC, New York City (Jason A. Nagi of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered as unnecessary. It was not an abuse of discretion to grant, with conditions, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see CPLR 327 [a]; Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    Susan Aranoff, Respondent, v Gerald Aranoff, Appellant.
    Submitted May 5, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 1171 (2014)].


text:
    Bellinson Law, LLC, Appellant, v Robert Iannucci, Respondent.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Hannah L. and Others, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Dwayne L., Appellant.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 865 (2014)].


text:
    HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Ace Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-OP2 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Respondent, v Gregory Sage, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the December 2013 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie, appellant having previously moved in the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal (22 NY3d 1172 [2014]) from the same Appellate Division order (see Selinger v Selinger, 90 NY2d 842 [1997]); motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the other order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Joseph W. McKay, Respondent, v Village of Endicott, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jin Cheng Lin, Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion to vacate this Court’s May 6, 2014 dismissal order granted [see 23 NY3d 959 (2014)].


text:
    PJ Hanley’s Corp., Appellant, v Kiwi Pub Corp., Respondent.
    Submitted June 23, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Volodymyr I. Tkachyshyn, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 1, 2014 dismissal order denied [see 22 NY3d 1168 (2014)]. Motion for leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Volodymyr I. Tkachyshyn, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    Submitted June 23, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 1, 2014 dismissal order denied [see 22 NY3d 1168 (2014)]. Motion for leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Tyrone D., Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion to strike portions of the brief filed by respondents granted to the extent of deeming stricken appended pages A31-A32 and references thereto in the first two sentences of the paragraph appearing at pages 14-15 of the brief; motion to strike otherwise denied.


text:
    Young Woo & Assoc., LLC, et al., Respondents, v Andrew Y. Kim, Defendant. Christine A. Rodriguez, Nonparty Appellant.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided June 30, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    [16 NE3d 1255, 992 NYS2d 776]
    Ana Vega, Respondent, v 103 Thayer Street, LLC, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant.
    Decided July 1, 2014

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Susan Paulson of counsel), for appellant.

      Levine & Wiss, PLLC, Mineola (Anthony A. Ferrante of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, order of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. The City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The markings on the Big Apple Map failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the alleged defect.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    In the Matter of AGBH Bel Air Rental, LLC, Respondent, v Hilary Best, Appellant.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion from the orders of the Appellate Term (see CPLR 5602 [a]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Debra Betz, Administratrix of the Estate of Carmelo Carbone, Also Known as Mel Carbone, Deceased, Appellant, v Arnold W. Blatt et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Patricia J. Curto, Appellant, v National Fuel Corporation, Respondent.
    (Appeal No. 1.)
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 1192 (2014)].


text:
    In the Matter of Delroy S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.


text:
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Respondent, v Kevin Michael Shields, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Hillcrest Homes, LLC, Appellant, v Albion Mobile Homes, Inc., Doing Business as Heritage Estates, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Susan Konig et al., Appellants, v CSC Holdings, LLC, Respondent, and Watch Croton, Respondent.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie (see CPLR 5602).


text:
    Nanomedicon, LLC, Appellant, v Research Foundation of State University of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Robert Germain, Sr., Respondent, v A.O. Smith Water Products Co. et al., Defendants, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant. (And Other Actions.)
    Submitted June 9, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Stephanie Cannon O’Brien, Appellant, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as New York State Comptroller, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion by the New York State Police Investigators Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affidavits are accepted as filed.


text:
    Eugene Palladino, Appellant, v CNY Centro, Inc., et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 23 NY3d 140 (2014)].


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley A. Brown, Appellant.
    Submitted May 19, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.


text:
    Hugh Reyes, Appellant, v Brinks Global Services USA, Inc., et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 22 NY3d 866 (2014)].


text:
    In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Jody J.T., Appellant.
    Submitted May 27, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.


text:
    Utica Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Ferro Enterprises NY LLC, Respondent, v James McCorvey, Jr., Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Corey N. Yamamura, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided July 1, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    [16 NE3d 1260, 992 NYS2d 781]
    In the Matter of Roger W. Barto.
    Decided July 16, 2014
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Roger W. Barto is suspended, with pay, effective immediately, from the office of Acting Justice of the Waterloo Village Court, Seneca County, pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 22 and Judiciary Law § 44 (8).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    In the Matter of Sharon Fuchs et al., Respondents, v Joseph Itzkowitz et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.
    Submitted August 27, 2014;
    decided August 27, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal denied. The Court of Appeals restates the rule that the denial of a motion for leave to appeal is not equivalent to an affirmance and has no precedential value (see Matter of Marchant v Mead-Morris Mfg. Co., 252 NY 284, 297-298 [1929]).


text:
    In the Matter of Paul C. VanSavage, Appellant, v Denver Jones, Respondent, et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)
    Submitted August 27, 2014;
    decided August 27, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Elaine D. Ward, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Decided August 28, 2014
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for appellants.

      Elaine D. Ward, respondent pro se.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed in its entirety. We cannot say that “the penalty of [revoking petitioner’s master plumber’s license] . . . shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 40 [2001]; see generally Matter of Pell v Board, of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234-235 [1974]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    Walter R. Beardslee, Individually and as Cotrustee of the Drusilla W. Beardslee Family Trust, et al., Respondents, v Inflection Energy, LLC, et al., Appellants.
    Decided August 28, 2014

      See 761 F3d 221.
   Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.


text:
    In the Matter of China C. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alexis C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Julian V. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alexis C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Julius V. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alexis C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)
    Submitted June 16, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Susan Gately, Respondent, v James Gately, Appellant.
    Submitted June 2, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014

      See 740 F3d 108.
   Motion by Institute of International Bankers et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014

      See 740 F3d 108.
   Motion by Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014

      See 740 F3d 108.
   Motion by Central Bank of Jordan for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014

      See 740 F3d 108.
   Motion by Committee on Banking Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014

      See 740 F3d 108.
   Motion by Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    In the Matter of Noel Olmosperez, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for poor person relief granted.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Barksdale, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Barnes, Appellant.
    Submitted August 18, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Cates, Sr., Appellant.
    Submitted July 14, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen M. Caza, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Martin J. McGuinness, Esq., PO. Box 1006, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Colon, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre English, Appellant.
    Submitted August 11, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gibson, Appellant.
    Submitted August 18, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and John P.M. Wappett, Warren County Public Defender’s Office, 1340 State Route 9, Lake George, New York 12845 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ally Golo, Appellant.
    Submitted August 11, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fahey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dupree Harris, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Henderson, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David Abbatoy, Jr., Esq., care of The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, 339 East Ave., Rochester, New York 14604 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Holley, Appellant.
    Submitted August 25, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Israel, Appellant.
    Submitted July 7, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jin Cheng Lin, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Jones, Appellant.
    Submitted August 11, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Jones, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion by Innocence Project for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Stanley R. Kims, II, Respondent-Appellant.
    Submitted June 30, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Mark C. Davison, Esq. care of Davison Law Office, 61 North Main Street, Suite C, PO Box 652, Canandaigua, New York 14424 assigned as counsel to the respondent-appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Urselina King, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Salvatore Letizia, Appellant.
    Submitted August 11, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 dismissed upon the ground that no application for leave to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 will lie from an order of a single Justice of the Appellate Division denying leave to appeal to that Court pursuant to CPL 460.15.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Collin F. Lloyd-Douglas, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Eugene Polhill, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jermaine Dunbar, Respondent.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeals herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleveland Lovett, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fabrice Lowe, Appellant.
    Submitted August 25, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Philip Rothschild, Esq., Hiscock Legal Aid Society, 351 South Warren Street, Syracuse, New York 13202 is assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Terrance L. Mack, Respondent.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kaity Marshall, Appellant.
    Submitted August 25, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Mercado, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Middlebrooks, Appellant.
    Submitted July 21, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David C. Schopp, Esq., The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., 237 Main Street, Suite 1602, Buffalo, New York 14203 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Moore, Appellant.
    Submitted July 7, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony N. Pacherille, Appellant.
    Submitted July 21, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion to vacate this Court’s June 17, 2014 preclusion order granted.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Pacquette, Appellant.
    Submitted July 7, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Sans, Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Washington, Appellant.
    Submitted August 11, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cedric J. Williams, Appellant.
    Submitted July 28, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    In the Matter of Town of North Hempstead, Appellant-Respondent, v County of Nassau, Respondent-Appellant.
    Submitted August 4, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion by Association of Towns of the State of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    In the Matter of Town of North Hempstead, Appellant-Respondent, v County of Nassau, Respondent-Appellant.
    Submitted August 18, 2014;
    decided August 28, 2014
   Motion by Town of Huntington for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.