New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 19, 2026

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

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Background Facts

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

Published on: January 19, 2026

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

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Background Facts

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

Published on: January 12, 2026

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

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Background Facts

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

Published on: January 5, 2026

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

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Background Facts

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

Published on: January 22, 2025

Court concluded that defendant’s actions were indeed forcible touching. People v. Gowdy, 2013 NY Slip Op 50263(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Forcible touching in New York refers to the act of intentionally and forcibly touching another person’s intimate parts without their consent. This offense is addressed under New York Penal Law Section 130.52. Under this statute, a person commits forcible touching when they intentionally touch another person’s intimate parts, such as their genitals, buttocks, or female breasts, for the purpose of gratifying their own sexual desire or to degrade or abuse the victim. The touch must be done forcibly and without the consent of the other person. Forcible touching is a sex crime and is a misdemeanor in New York.

Force can be physical or non-physical, such as threats or coercion, and it must be used to overcome the other person’s resistance or to prevent them from resisting the touching. Like with any sex crime, consent is a crucial factor in determining whether an act of touching constitutes forcible touching, and the absence of consent is a key element in establishing guilt under this statute.

Background Facts

Published on: December 5, 2024

How Someone with a Lengthy Criminal History Can Pass Background Checks in New York

by Stephen Bilkis

Navigating the complexities of criminal records and background checks can be particularly challenging for individuals with extensive criminal histories. In New York, state laws provide several mechanisms that can enable someone with numerous arrests and even serious charges, such as murder, to pass background checks, especially in employment scenarios.

Arrests vs. Convictions

One of the primary factors influencing whether a person’s criminal history appears on a background check is the distinction between arrests and convictions. Under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, if an arrest does not result in a conviction, the records are typically sealed. Sealed records are not accessible to most employers or the general public, effectively removing them from standard background checks. This means that multiple arrests without resulting convictions may not show up, providing individuals with a cleaner record despite a history of interactions with law enforcement.

Published on: December 4, 2024

Is It Legal to Record a Threatening Roommate in a New York Homeless Shelter?

by Stephen Bilkis

Living in a homeless shelter can present numerous challenges, including sharing close quarters with individuals who may not always act in your best interest. In situations where a roommate becomes threatening, understanding your legal rights and options is crucial for ensuring your safety and protecting yourself legally. One common concern is whether it is legal to record a roommate who threatens your life or the lives of others in such environments, particularly in New York where specific laws govern the recording of conversations.

One-Party Consent Law in New York

New York is classified as a one-party consent state under its Penal Law § 250.00. This means that as long as one party involved in the conversation consents to the recording, it is legal to do so without the other party’s knowledge or permission. In practical terms, if you are part of the conversation, you have the right to record it. This legal provision is designed to balance individual privacy rights with the practical need for personal protection and evidence gathering in potentially volatile situations.

Published on: February 21, 2024

Court considered whether evidence was sufficient to support a possesion of child pornography conviction. People v. Kent, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3572 (N.Y. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Promoting and possessing sexual performances by a child in New York is a sex crime involving to the production, distribution, or possession of material depicting sexual conduct involving minors. The statute governing this offense is found in Article 263 of the New York Penal Law.

Under this law, promoting a sexual performance by a child occurs when a person knowingly produces, directs, or promotes any performance that includes sexual conduct by a child under the age of seventeen. This includes activities such as filming, photographing, or otherwise recording minors engaged in sexual acts or simulated sexual acts (Penal Law § 263.15).

Possessing sexual performances by a child involves knowingly possessing or accessing any material, such as photographs, videos, or digital files, that depict sexual conduct by a child under the age of sixteen. This offense encompasses both physical possession, such as having explicit images stored on a device, and digital possession, such as downloading or accessing illegal material online (Penal Law § 263.16).

Published on: February 19, 2024

Criminal Court considered whether to dismiss indecent exposure charges. People v. Orimogunje, 35 Misc. 3d 639 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Indecent exposure in New York refers to the act of publicly exposing one’s private parts in a manner considered offensive or inappropriate. This offense is addressed under New York Penal Law Section 245.01.

Under this statute, a person commits indecent exposure when they intentionally expose their private parts in a public place or in a manner that could be easily observed by others who are in a private location. The law specifies that the exposure must be done for the purpose of alarming or offending others, or with the knowledge that such conduct is likely to cause alarm or offense.

Indecent exposure is considered a violation in New York, which is a less serious offense compared to misdemeanors or felonies. However, it can still result in legal consequences such as fines or community service.

Published on: February 12, 2024

Case involving sexual assault and mistaken identity. People v. Hough, 159 Misc. 2d 997 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Hough is about a sexual assault and mistaken belief. Mistaken belief refers to a situation where someone holds a belief or understanding about a particular fact or circumstance that turns out to be incorrect. In other words, it involves being mistaken or wrong about something. This can happen for various reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of evidence, or misunderstanding of the situation.

In legal contexts, mistaken belief often arises in cases where a person’s actions or decisions are influenced by their belief in certain facts or circumstances. Generally, it applies to the actions of the defendant. In this case, however, it relates to the issue of the victim and whether or not she consented to a sexual act. The case revolved around the defendant’s alleged deception of the complainant, leading to sexual intercourse without her consent.

Background Facts