For more than 73 combined years, Feldman & Feldman has zealously represented our clients, in all aspects of trial and appellate litigation, and have won hundreds of trials and appeals.
​
Sample Reported Victories
​
In the United States Supreme Court:
​
Taste v. United States, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4520 (June 30, 2015)(“ ... the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4251 (2015.)”).
​
In other federal and state courts:
​
People v. Mcguire, 2023 NY Slip Op 04070, ¶ 1 (App. Div. 4th Dept.)(“ ... hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion”).
People v. Bowen-Rahaman, 78 Misc. 3d 133(A) (App. Term, 2d Dept., 2023)(reversed where “[a] review of the record indicates, and the People concede, that the felony complaints were not converted into an information by notations upon or attached thereto which make the necessary and appropriate changes in the title of the instrument and in the names of the offense or offenses charged (CPL 180.50 [3] [a] [iii])”).
​
Johnson v. Lomax, 214 A.D.3d 980 (2d Dept 2023)(reversed)
People v. Mendez, 2023 NY Slip Op 00884, ¶ 1 (2d Dept. February 15, 2023)(Sentence reduced from 25 to 11 years' imprisonment).
​
Tierney v. Kelley, 208 A.D.3d 1187 (2d Dept. 2022)(Article 78 writ of prohibition. Petition dismissed).
​
People v. Dancy, 2022 NY Slip Op 03904 (2d Dept. June 15, 2022)(reversed three-year ignition interlock device).
People v. Terrell Berry, 2022 NY Slip Op 03737 (2d Dept. 2022)(reversed, on the law, non-presence).
​
People v. David Flores, 2022 NY Slip Op 50431(U) (App. Term)(App. Term, 2d Dept 2022)(reversed)
​
People v. Luna-Velasquez, (App. Term, 2d Dept. April 7, 2022)(reversed)
​
People v. Emerson Hernandez, (App. Term, 2d Dept. April 7, 2022)(DNA fee vacated)
​
People v. Amantecatl, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 700 (App. Term, 2d Dept. February 18, 2022)(Peque remittal).
People v. Ofield, 2022 NY Slip Op 00196 (2d Dept. 2022)(Appeal waiver found defective; $5,000 fine vacated).
​
People v. Robinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07013, ¶ 1 (2d Dept. 2021)(sentence modified; “all sentences shall otherwise run concurrently with each other.”).
​
New York v. Cruz, 2021 NY Slip Op 05297 (1st Dept. 2021)(remanded where “defendant should not have been resentenced in his absence (see CPL 380.40[1]). The record is insufficient to establish that defendant was made aware of his right to be present and that he decided not to appear.”).
​
People v. Grimes, 2021 NY Slip Op 03471 (2d Dept. 2021)(“The defendant’s contention that the orders of protection in favor of two of the defendant’s children, both under the age of three, who were in the back seat of the vehicle at the time of the stop, should be vacated on the ground that the court lacked the authority pursuant to CPL 530.13(4) to issue them, is unpreserved for appellate review, as [trial counsel] failed to raise the argument at sentencing. However, we may reach that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.These small children could not be characterized as either witnesses or victims of the crimes of which the defendant was found guilty. Therefore, we vacate the orders of protection.”).
People v. Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 03196 (2d Dept. 2021)(Reversed; indictment dismissed. “In this single-witness identification case, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable.”).
New York v. Adams, 2021 NY Slip Op 02808 (2d Dept. 2021)(“judgments are reversed, on the law, the sentences imposed thereon are vacated, and the matters are remitted to the County Court”).
People v. St. Louis (2021, unreported)(After People concede Appellant would prevail on appeal, People agree to reduce sentence in return for withdrawing appeal).
​
People v. Marie L. Smith, 71 Misc. 3d 127(A) (App. Term. 2d Dept, March 18, 2021)(“ ... the District Court failed to pronounce that restitution was part of the sentence, in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20”).
People v. Atif Kashif, 2021 NY Slip Op 21062 (App. Term, 2d Dept. March 18, 2021)(“we find that defense counsel’s conduct on this point was sufficiently egregious . . . to warrant a reversal of defendant’s conviction.”).
Matter of Weilert v. Weilert, 2021 NY Slip Op 00850 (2d Dept. Feb. 10, 2021)(“In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Paul M. Hensley, J.), dated March 18, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, in effect, denied that branch of the mother's petition which was to modify an order of the same court dated May 20, 2013, so as to award her sole legal and residential custody of the children. ORDERED that the order dated March 18, 2019, is reversed insofar as appealed from ....”).
​
People v. Toribio, 2020 NY Slip Op 50933(U) (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2020)(“the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, the guilty plea is vacated ....”).
​
People v. Nikoghosyan, 2020 NY Slip Op 50952(U) Appellate Term, Second Department, August 21, 2020)(“ ... the matter is remitted [under Peque] to the Criminal Court to afford defendant an opportunity to move, within 90 days of the date of this decision and order, to vacate his plea, in accordance with this decision and order, and for a report thereafter on any such motion by defendant, and the appeal is held in abeyance pending receipt of the Criminal Court’s report”).
​
People v. Banos, 2020 NY Slip Op 20134, ¶¶ 2-3 (App. Term 2020)(Defendant also contends ... that the judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree should be reversed based on the amendment of Penal Law § 265.01 (1), which decriminalized possession of a gravity knife. Defendant argues that the change in the law should be applied retroactively to his case since the change occurred while his case was pending on direct review. In response, the People consent to reversal of that judgment of conviction in light of the amended statute and the decision in Cracco v Vance (376 F Supp 3d 304 [SD NY 2019]), in which the District Court ruled that New York's gravity knife statute as encompassed in Penal Law § 265.01 (1) was unconstitutionally vague.”).
People v. Sabirov, 2020 NY Slip Op 03378 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2020)(Reversed where “[c]ontrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, an intoxication charge was warranted.”).
​
Brin v. Shady, 2020 NY Slip Op 00256, ¶ 2 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. Jan. 15, 2020)(Reversed. “We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination (1) awarding the defendant sole legal custody of the parties' child, (2) denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to direct therapeutic parental access with the child, (3) directing that parental access between the plaintiff and the child ‘shall take place in accordance with [the child’s] preferences,’ and (4) granting the defendant’s motion for a restraining order prohibiting the plaintiff from interfering with the child’s life at school, without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.”).
​
People v. Grant, 2019 NY Slip Op 08864, ¶ 1 (2d Dept. December 11, 2019)(“ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by vacating the provision thereof directing the defendant to make restitution in the sum of $39,374.75 and substituting therefor a provision directing the defendant to make restitution in the sum of $15,000, and (2) by vacating the provision thereof directing payment of the mandatory surcharge by civil judgment and substituting therefor a provision directing payment of the mandatory surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35(5)”)
People v. Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05428 (2d Dept. July 3, 2019)(reversed where, “[a]s the defendant contends, his factual allocution during the plea proceeding negated an essential element of the offense charged, thereby casting significant doubt upon his guilt.”).
​
People v. Dimon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05417 (2d Dept. July 3, 2019)(“The defendant contends that she was entitled to a hearing to determine whether she violated the conditions of her plea agreement. We agree * * * Moreover, as acknowledged by the People, the County Court should not have pronounced sentence without first receiving a presentence investigation report.”).
People v. Dacosta, 2019 NY Slip Op 50216(U) (App. Term, 2d Dept. Feb. 21, 2019)(reversed, and accusatory instrument dismissed, where, “[b]y order dated January 9, 2013, the City Court ordered a competency hearing pursuant to CPL article 730. However, the court proceeded to trial without having conducted the hearing.”).
People v. Sarner, 2018 NY Slip Op 08335 (2d Dept. December 5, 2018)(remitted)
People v. Crews, 2018 NY Slip Op 06257, ¶ 1 (2d Dept. September 26, 2018)(Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed to a determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years [from 17 years]”).
​
United States v. Singh, No. 17-905-cr, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5523 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2018)(“ ... the district court erred in imposing a financial disclosure condition without pronouncing it orally at sentencing.”).
​
People v. Jason Faraone, 58 Misc. 3d 149(A) (App. Term 2018)(“Ordered that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial * * * As the District Court’s Sandoval ruling was not wholly favorable to defendant and it cannot be said that defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous, defendant’s absence requires reversal of his conviction even though his claim was not preserved for appellate review.”).
​
United States v. Pedro Ortiz (First Circuit, 2017, sentence reversed)
​
People v. Aubrey Payne, (Appellate Term, Second Department, Jan. 2017)(reversed where sentencing court failed to pronounce sentence on each count)(unreported).
​
People v. Perez, ___A.D.3d___, 41 N.Y.S.3d 890, 891, 2016 NY Slip Op 08471, *1 (2016)(“ ... reversal is required because of the absence of an inquiry into whether, and to what extent, a juror slept during the trial.”).
People v. Tamara Mobley, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7462 (1st Dept Nov. 15, 2016)(Represented Respondent, affirmed).
United States v. Darlene Ford, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6712 (1st Cir. Apr. 13, 2016)(“In a case of first impression, we find that the jury should not have been allowed to convict Darlene of aiding and abetting James’s unlawful possession of a firearm merely because she ‘had reason to know’ that James had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.”).
People v. Susan P. Lawrence, 2016 NY Slip Op 26117 (App. Term, 2d Dept. April 6, 2016)(“ordered that the judgment of conviction [for child endangerment] is reversed, on the facts, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.”).
People v. Leach, 2016 NY Slip Op 01253 (Feb. 23, 2016)(In affirming, New York Court of Appeals, in a concurring decision by Jenny Rivera, adopted Appellant’s argument banning the practice in New York of the post-plea appellate waiver conducted at sentence).
Matter of Ashton v. Doroski, 2016 NY Slip Op 01172 (2d Dept. Feb. 17, 2016)(Represented the Respondent father)(“The mother petitioned to modify an order of custody and visitation which gave the father sole custody of the parties’ child, claiming that the father was alienating her from the child by interfering with her visitation. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the petition. The mother appeals.” Affirmed).
United States v. Smith, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19140, *6-7 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2015)(Sentence remanded “[b]ecause no financial penalties were imposed on Smith, there was no installment payment schedule associated with his sentence.”).
United States v. Cruz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17171 (2d Cir. Sep 30, 2015)(Sentence vacated and remanded because the Court “ ... conclude[d] that, in the absence of any finding that Cruz’s obstructive conduct related to a ‘closely related offense,’ the district court’s application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was in error.”).
United States v. Hainze ElÍas DÍaz-Arroyo, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14115 (1st Cir. August 12, 2015)(remanded)
Taste v. United States, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4520 (Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 2015)(“ ... the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4251 (2015.)”).
People v. Guadalupe, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5110, *1-2 (2d Dept. June 17, 2015)(“Since the County Court failed to pronounce the sentences of restitution in open court, the sentences must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20.”).
People v. Dollinger, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4427, *4 (2d Dept May 27, 2015)(Reversed where “[t]he record establishes that the defendant’s representation at sentencing by the attorney who had represented the People when he pleaded guilty presented a potential conflict of interest.”).
People v. Ballato, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089 (2d Dept. May 13, 2015)(Reversed, where, “[u]nder the[] circumstances, the defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.”).
Matter of Wright v. McIntosh, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 917, 2015 NY Slip Op 00900 (2d Dept. Feb. 4, 2015)(contempt reversed where, “[u]nder these circumstances, it cannot be said that the mother violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court.”).
Matter of Richmond v. Perez, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. Nov. 26, 2014)(represented Respondent, affirmed).
Matter of Georghakis v. Matarazzo, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8361 (2d Dept. Dec. 3, 2014)(“Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.”).
Matter of Gonzalez v. Borbon, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. Oct. 15, 2014)(represented mother; denial of grandparent visitation affirmed).
United States v. Zairo Ramos, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15537 (1st Cir. August 13, 2014)(“[W]e agree with Ramos that United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009), requires us to vacate the internet, computer, and pornography supervised release conditions. Under Perazza-Mercado, these conditions are not reasonably related to Ramos’s characteristics and history, and thus deprive him of more liberty than reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.”).
Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 2014 NY Slip Op 4019 (2d Dept. June 4, 2014)(Reversed where " ... the Supreme Court failed to conduct such an inquiry, the appellant's waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective, and the Supreme Court erred in permitting him to proceed pro se.").
Matter of Matter of State of New York v. Walter R., 2014 NY Slip Op 4020 (2d Dept. June 4, 2014)(The appellant argues that the admission of the State's experts' testimony concerning unproven accusations was unreliable hearsay which violated his constitutional right to due process. We agree * * * Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the finding of mental abnormality is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial on the issue of mental abnormality, and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing.").
People v. Charles, 2014 NY Slip Op 3854 (2d Dept. May 28, 2014("Ordered that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim [because the defendant correctly] contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea record demonstrates that the court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea.").
People v. Santos, 2014 NY Slip Op 2089 (2d Dept. March 26, 2014)(“ ... the People correctly concede, the defendant’s conviction of attempted assault in the third degree must be vacated. At the defendant’s first trial, he was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of assault in the second degree. After this Court reversed and ordered a new trial, the People failed to obtain an indictment for attempted assault in the second degree, which was not charged in the original indictment. Accordingly, on retrial, it was error to submit to the jury the counts of attempted assault in the second degree and the lesser-included offense of attempted assault in the third degree.").
People v. Terry, 2014 NY Slip Op 1471 (2d Dept. March 5, 2014)(“The record was insufficient to insure that the defendant grasped the distinction between the trial rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and the right to appeal, especially since there is no written waiver of the right to appeal in the record. Accordingly, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, and does not preclude review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution.”).
New York v. Duart, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 365 (2d Dept. January 22, 2014)(Remitted where “[t]he defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to the defendant's with respect to that branch of the defendant's motion which was to withdraw his plea of guilty to attempted use of a child in a sexual performance.”).
People v. Finnegan, 2013 NY Slip Op 8457 (2d Dept. 2013)(“On the day the defendant pleaded guilty, the County Court told him that a condition of the plea agreement was that he waive his right to appeal. However, the County Court did not explain the right to appeal until the date the defendant was sentenced, almost two months after the defendant pleaded guilty, and only after the sentences were actually pronounced. In addition, the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal was executed after the pronouncement of the sentences. These circumstances do not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to waive his right to appeal as a condition of his pleas of guilty.”).
People v. Robinson, 2013 NY Slip Op 7992 (2d Dept. November 27, 2013)(“The defendant’s statutory right to be ‘personally present at the time sentence is pronounced’ (CPL 380.40[1]) extends to resentencing and to the amendment of a sentence. Thus, the County Court's failure to have the defendant produced at the proceeding on November 22, 2011, at which it amended a resentence, violated the defendant's statutory right to be present at the time of sentence. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing in accordance with Penal Law § 70.45(2-a) and (5)(c).”).
People v. Fowler, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7913 (2d Dept. November 27, 2013)(appellate waiver found invalid)
Matter of Timmia S, (2d Dept. Nov. 20, 2013)(reversed).
People v. Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 6884 (2d Dept. October 23, 2013)(“The defendant correctly contends that he did not validly waive his right to appeal. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant ‘grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing.’”).
People v. Pettress, 2013 NY Slip Op 5645 (2d Dept. August 14, 2013)(“ ... judgments are modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed * * * Although a court is free to reserve the right to order restitution as part of a plea bargain, the plea minutes in this case do not indicate that the pleas of guilty were negotiated with terms that included restitution.”).
People v. Gil, 2013 NY Slip Op 5585 (2d Dept. August 7, 2013)(“On the day the defendant pleaded guilty, the court told him that a condition of the plea agreement was that he waive his right to appeal. The court did not, however, explain the right to appeal until the date the defendant was sentenced, more than a month after the defendant pleaded guilty, and only after the sentence was actually pronounced. Also, the defendant’s written waiver of the right to appeal was executed after the pronouncement of sentence. These circumstances do not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to waive his right to appeal as a condition of his plea of guilty. Accordingly, the appeal waiver may not be enforced.”).
People v. Garrett, 2013 NY Slip Op 3498 (2d Dept. May 15, 2013)(murder conviction reversed where “ ... the allegedly suppressed evidence clearly fell within the ambit of the prosecutor’s Brady obligation because it constituted impeachment evidence.”).
Gowda v. Reddy, 2013 NY Slip Op 2577 (2d Dept. April 17, 2013)(modified and remitted).
People v. Poznanski, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2202 (2d Dept.April 3, 2013)(“Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not valid and, therefore, the purported waiver does not bar review of the defendant’s claim. * * * The County Court improperly directed the defendant to pay restitution in the sum of $570.50.”).
Vandy Grant v. Jackie Terry, 2013 NY Slip Op 1831 (2d Dept. March 20, 2013)(Represented Respondent, affirmed).
Matter of Jalil U. (Rachel L.-U.), 2013 NY Slip Op 754 (2d Dept. February 6, 2013)(reversed).
People v Keiser, 2012 NY Slip Op 8036 (2d Dept. November 21, 2012)(court agrees with Appellant that, “[a]s a threshold matter, the defendant’s written waiver of his right to appeal was not valid, because the County Court did not ensure that he ‘understood the valued right [he] was relinquishing.’”).
Doroski v. Ashton, 2012 NY Slip Op 6951 (2d Dept. October 17, 2012)(Represented Respondent: “Ordered that the order dated December 8, 2011, is affirmed.”).
United States v. Luke, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165 (2d Cir. October 25, 2012)(The application of Dorsey in this case requires that we vacate Luke’s sentence and remand to the district court for re-sentencing consistent with the FSA.”).
People v. McGhee, 2012 NY Slip Op 4367 (2d Dept. June 6, 2012)(“The County Court failed to pronounce sentence, in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for resentencing on the conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.”).
United States v. William Cloud, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (4th Cir. May 31, 2012)(“A jury convicted William Roosevelt Cloud of various offenses stemming from an extensive mortgage fraud conspiracy * * * We affirm the district court’s judgment on the first two issues, but vacate the court's reimbursement order. Cloud also argues that his money laundering convictions must be reversed under United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S. Ct. 2020, 170 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2008), and thus, that the district court erred in rejecting his motion for judgment of acquittal on this ground. Applying Santos, as interpreted by United States v. Halstead, 634 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2011), to the facts underlying Cloud’s substantive money laundering convictions, we agree and therefore reverse those convictions.”).
Matter of Clarke v. Boertlein, 82 A.D.3d 976 (2d Dept. 2011)(“Ordered that the amended order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the mother’s motion which was for permission to relocate with the parties' three children to Pennsylvania is granted ....”).
United States v. Akiem Luke (2d Cir. 2011)(Reversed under Fair Sentencing Act)
People v. Holley, 2011 NY Slip Op 6237 (2d Dept. August 9, 2011)(“Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, (1) by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under count seven of the indictment to six years of imprisonment and (2) by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under count eight of the indictment to six years of imprisonment”).
People v. Allen, 2011 NY Slip Op 5512 (2d Dept. June 21, 2011)(“ ... as the defendant correctly contends, the Supreme Court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence of a prior uncharged hand-to-hand drug transaction. This evidence was not admissible under the modus operandi or absence of mistake exceptions to the Molineux rule * * * We also agree with the defendant’s contention, although unpreserved for appellate review, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the jury's receipt, in the jury room, of items that were not admitted into evidence, including a marijuana bud and a bullet. These items were discovered by jurors examining the pocket of the defendant's jacket, which had been admitted into evidence. While the trial court has the discretion to allow the jurors, upon retiring to deliberate, to take with them ‘[a]ny exhibits received in evidence at the trial’ (CPL 310.20[1]), ‘no provision authorizes submission of unadmitted exhibits’ (People v Bouton, 50 NY2d 130, 137, 405 N.E.2d 699, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218). ‘Since an unadmitted exhibit has not undergone the test of cross-examination, its consideration by the jury directly infringes on the defendant’s right of confrontation.’”).
People v. Straub, 2011 NY Slip Op 3640 (2d Dept. April 26, 2011)(“ ... the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings and a new determination of the defendant's motion. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009[,] solely on the basis that his status as a reincarcerated parole violator made him ineligible for such relief. For the reasons set forth in People v Phillips (82 AD3d 1011), the defendant’s status does not preclude the County Court from considering and determining the merits of the defendant's motion.”).
People v. Mikus, 2011 NY Slip Op 2905 (2d Dept. April 5, 2011)(“The People correctly concede that the term of postrelease supervision challenged on this appeal must be vacated. Accordingly, the resentence must be reversed, the term of postrelease supervision must be vacated, and the original sentence imposed on February 7, 2006, must be reinstated”).
Matter of Tumminello v. Tumminello, 82 A.D.3d 992 (2d Dept. 2011)(“Here, the record is inadequate to demonstrate that the petitioner validly waived her right to counsel. Although the Family Court advised the petitioner of her right to counsel, the Family Court did not inform her of her right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, of her right to have counsel assigned if she was financially unable to obtain representation, and of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel. Accordingly, the order must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, so that the petitioner can either appear with counsel or adequately waive her rights.”).
Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32 (2d Dept. November 3, 2010)(Represented Respondent; affirmed. Court ruled: “The principal issue presented on these appeals, which appears to be one of first impression for an appellate court in this state, is whether the Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction over family offense proceedings where the alleged acts occurred outside of the state and even outside of the country. We hold that Family Ct Act § 812 grants the Family Court subject matter jurisdiction to hear such proceedings and that the Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties' petitions, despite the fact that the acts alleged occurred on the island territory of Anguilla.”).
Taylor v. Taylor, 77 A.D.3d 669 (2d Dept. 2010)(represented respondent; affirmed. Court ruled: “Here, in light of the inability of the parents to communicate with each other, it was not an improvident exercise of the Family Court's discretion to modify the holiday visitation schedule by setting forth specific holidays on which each parent would have the child, and prohibiting the parents from deviating from the schedule without prior court approval.”).
People v. Lopez, 75 A.D.3d 610 (2d Dept. 2010)(“Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials are granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.”).
United States v. Torres-Gonzlaez, 613 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. July 20, 2010)(Reversed, court ruled: “To convict Torres, the government had to show that the gun was carried during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. This phrase has been interpreted capaciously, but still requires at a minimum evidence that the firearm had some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime. The government on appeal concedes that the evidence of such a relationship was inadequate * * * Torres also contests the reasonableness of his 408-month sentence ... [b]ut 360 months of the sentence reflected a conviction we are reversing ....”)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) [Appellant’s sentence reduced to four from 34 years’ imprisonment].
People v. Rodriguez, 73 A.D.3d 815 (2d Dept. 2010)(“we agree that the Supreme Court erred in relying upon a preliminary fact-finding report prepared by the Nassau County Probation Department in fixing the amount of restitution”).
United States v. Lluberes, 372 Fed. Appx. 151 (2d Cir. 2010)(“[D]efendant correctly argues that the district court erred in imposing a $ 100 mandatory special assessment on each of the two counts in the Narcotics Conviction. The government concedes this point, and we accordingly remand this case to the district court with instructions to reduce the special assessment on the Narcotics Conviction to $ 100.”).
People v. Cerilli, 26 Misc. 3d 144A (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2010)(“Since, under these circumstances, defendant could not waive his right to challenge his competency to proceed in a criminal action, it was error for the court to allow defendant to enter a plea of guilty (see Valvano, 186 AD2d at 769). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the guilty plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for further proceedings, including a hearing to determine defendant's competency.”).
Williams v. Harrison, 368 Fed. Appx. 764 (9th Cir. 2010)(“We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a determination as to whether the claims in the motions to recall the remittitur are such that the motions should be treated as state habeas petitions.”).
Trinagel v. Boyar, 70 A.D.3d 816 (2d Dept. 2010)(custody affirmed, represented child).
Matter of Daniel R. v Lucille R., 70 A.D.3d 839 (2d Dept. 2010)(custody affirmed).
People v. Mobley, 68 A.D.3d 786 (2d Dept. 2009)(reversed where “the court made no further inquiries into the facts and circumstances despite the defendant’s statements which raised the possibility of an agency defense. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent”).
Tori v. Tori, 67 A.D.3d 1021 (2d Dept. November 24, 2009)(Represented Respondent, father’s challenge to custody denied).
People v. Goodwin, 64 A.D.3d 790 (2d Dept. July 28, 2009)(“We agree with the defendant ... that the County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The defendant used a peremptory challenge to excuse the prospective juror, and his peremptory challenges were exhausted prior to the conclusion of jury selection. Thus, the defendant correctly asserts on appeal that the denial of his challenge for cause constituted reversible error.”).
United States v. Garcia-Gracian, 329 Fed. Appx. 145 (9th Cir. 2009)(“In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)).”).
People v. Griffin, 63 A.D.3d 856 (2d Dept. 2009)(“The matter must be remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to hear and report on the issue of whether the confidential informant entered into a cooperation agreement with any law enforcement agency at any time prior to her testimony at trial.”).
Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 2009 NY Slip Op 4421 (2d Dept. June 2, 2009)(“[O]rdered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the father’s petition which was for unsupervised visitation is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, to determine who shall supervise visitation and to set a visitation schedule, and for the entry of an amended order thereafter.”).
Micciche v. Micciche, 2009 NY Slip Op 3702 (2d Dept. May 5, 2009)(Represented Respondent, affirmed).
Matter of Rudolph v. Armstead, 2009 NY Slip Op 3523 (2d Dept. April 28, 2009)(represented respondent mother in father’s custody appeal; court affirmed).
United States v. Nelson Martinez, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8075 (2d Cir. April 17, 2009)(sentence remand).
Gerson v. Gerson, 57 A.D.3d 606 (2d Dept. 2008)(“Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts.”).
People v. Knox, 56 A.D.3d 799 (2d Dept. Nov. 25, 2008)(sentence modification).
People v. Kegel, 55 A.D.3d 625(2d Dept. 2008)(“Although a court is free to reserve the right to order restitution as part of a plea bargain, the plea minutes in this case do not indicate that the plea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution. Accordingly, at sentencing, the defendant should have been given an opportunity either to withdraw his plea or to accept the enhanced sentence of restitution and a prison sentence. Since the defendant was not afforded this opportunity, we remit the matter for that purpose, or for the imposition of the agreed-upon sentence.”).
United States v. Mohammed Zayed, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008)(“We conclude that the district court committed evidentiary errors that were sufficiently prejudicial as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial. We therefore vacate the convictions and remand for further proceedings”)(cover, New York Times, October 3, 2008, Metro Section, P. 1, col. A, cover, Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008; cover, New York Law Journal, October 3, 2008; Case of the Day, New York Law Journal, October 8, 2008).
Shockome v. Shockome, 53 A.D.3d 618 (2d Dept. 2008)(in custody challenge, represented winning Respondent)(“Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Family Court did not err in granting the father’s petition to suspend the mother's telephone contact and visitation with the subject children to the extent of temporarily suspending the mother’s telephone contact with the children, while allowing continued e-mail communications, until such time as she complied with certain of the court's prior orders”).
United States v. Gumbs, 286 Fed. Appx. 763 (2d Cir. 2008)(remanded)
People v. Ferguson, 53 A.D.3d 571 (2d Dept. 2008)(“Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County dated May 5, 2006, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith.”).
Matter of Summer A. v. Ronald C., 49 A.D.3d 722 (2d Dept. 2008)(Represented Appellant adoptive parents: “While the decision in this case is a difficult one to make, we conclude that evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that it would be in Summer’s best interests to remain in the loving care of the prospective adoptive parents, who are better able to provide her with stability and parental guidance”).
United States v. Rafael Penn (2d Cir 2008, sentence remanded)
United States v. Walid Aly (2d Cir. 2008, reversed and remanded)
Ciminello v. Ciminello, 47 A.D.3d 611 (2d Dept. 2008)(Matrimonial appeal; represented Respondent; affirmed).
People v. Henderson, 44 A.D.3d 873 (2d Dept. 2007)(“Although a court is, of course, free to reserve in a plea bargain the right to order restitution, the guilty plea in this case was negotiated with terms that did not include restitution. Accordingly, at sentencing, the defendant should have been given an opportunity either to withdraw his plea or to accept the enhanced sentence of restitution and a prison sentence.”).
People v. Gabbidon, 40 A.D.3d 776 (2d Dept. 2007)(where People appealed, the court affirmed, ruling: “Since the defendant was charged in the indictment with criminal possession of marihuana, which is not a controlled substance, the County Court correctly dismissed the indictment”).
Matter of Dancer v. Robertson, 38 A.D.3d 887 (2d Dept. 2007)(where counsel represented Respondent on appeal, court ruled: “The record supports the Family Court’s determination that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed the act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him”).
People v. Carmona, 27 A.D.3d 574 (2d Dept. 2006)(“As the People correctly concede, the attempt to assault a police officer is a legal impossibility.”).
People v. Robinson, 26 A.D.3d 395(2d Dept. 2006)(“the judgment must nevertheless be reversed, and a new trial ordered. After a witness testified that the defendant had spent time in jail, the Supreme Court did not give a sufficient curative instruction, as it was required to do in order to avoid prejudice to the defendant. The Supreme Court also refused the defendant's request to charge assault in the third degree, despite the fact that there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support a conclusion that the defendant recklessly threw the rock that struck the victim through a glass door at her home, rather than intentionally in order to strike her, which would constitute the lesser offense. Contrary to the People’s contentions, these arguments were preserved by the defendant for appellate review and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not so overwhelming that these errors can be said to be harmless.”).
Linksman v. Linksman (2d Dept. November 28, 2005)(reversed)
Sparks v. Sparks (Family Court grants Objections to Hearing Examiner’s findings)
United States v. Cordero (2d Cir. 2005)(remanded)
People v. Nau, 21 A.D.3d 568 (2d Dept. 2005)(reversed)(“Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination on the motion.”).
United States v. Friedman, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14870 (2d Cir. 2005)(remanded).
United States v. Delpilar, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10497 (2d Cir. June 6, 2005 (remanded).
O’Connor v. Dyer, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5637 (2d Dept. May 23, 2005)(reversed).
United States v. Vaval, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9818 (2d Cir. May 26, 2005)(remanded).
Hayden v. P. Zarkadas, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119 (2d Dept. May 9, 2005)(modified).
People v. Dunn, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1040 (2005)(N.Y. Court of Appeals)(People’s appeal, affirmed).
United States v. Lavarco, (2d Cir. 2005)(remanded).
United States v. Carmon, (2d Cir. 2005)(remanded).
Matter of Larry O., 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15704 (2d Dept. December 27, 2004)(neglect finding reversed).
People v. Hilton Cohen, unreported decision (Nassau County Court, 2004)(440.10 motion granted to vacate plea and sentence on attempted kidnapping)(Judge Brown).
McGlaughlin v. Hock, unreported decision (2d Dept. 2004)(represented respondent; successfully dismissed appellant’s appeal).
United States v. Geibel, 369 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2004)(multiple substantive insider trading counts dismissed)(New York Law Journal Decision of the Day, June 8, 2004).
People v. Garrison, 9 A.D.3d 436 (2d Dept. 2004)(reversed)(plea to burglary in the second degree reversed).
In re Peter G., 6 A.D.3d 201 (1st Dept. 2004)(reversed)(Family Court neglect finding reversed).
Hlinka v. Hlinka, 1 A.D.3d 561 (2d Dept. 2003)(matrimonial, reversed, and $180,000 in maintenance and equitable distribution set aside).
Richardson v. Richardson, 309 A.D.2d 795 (2d Dept. 2003)(represented respondent in matrimonial; court upheld lower court ruling).
In re Bruce K., 306 A.D.2d 479 (2d Dept. June 23, 2003)(juvenile delinquency, reversed).
In the Matter of Anthony S., 302 A.D.2d 531 (2d Dept. 2003)(reversed).
Ruli v. Hiro Enterprise, 298 A.D.2d 256 (1st Dept. 2002)(construction/tort; represented respondent; general contractor’s appeal from denial of motion for summary judgment denied).
People v. Erwin, 299 A.D.2d 366 (2d Dept. 2002)(sentence vacated).
United States v. Robert Price (3d Cir. 2002)(reversed)(unreported).
Feldman v. Hammer Construction, 2002 NY Slip Op 40544U; 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1686 (App. Term, 2d Dept. September 20, 2002)(“Judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed ... Upon reviewing the entire record ... we find that the plaintiff has sufficiently proven damages.”).
In re Victoria S., 297 A.D.2d 323 (2d Dept. 2002)(reversed).
Kushman v. Kushman, 297 A.D.2d 333 (2d Dept 2002).
United States v. Simms, 46 Fed. Appx. 63 (3d Cir. 2002).(reversed).
Mullen v. Just, 288 A.D.2d 476 (2d Dept. 2001).
People v. Keith Lopez, 284 A.D.2d 115 (1st Dept 2001)(reversed).
Rodriguez v. Medina, 277 A.D.2d 144 (1st Dept. 2000).
Buhl v. Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783 (3d Cir. 2000)(reversed).
People v. Charles Dabbs, 280 A.D.2d 611 (2d Dept. 2001).
People Jackson, 272 A.D.2d 342 (2d Dept. 2000)(reversed).
Coutsoukis v. Samora, 274 A.D.2d 518 (2d Dept. 2000).
United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. April 28, 1999).
Bumpus v. Warden, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3702 (2d Cir. 1999)(reversed).
United States v. Robert Edwards, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30440 (3d Cir. November 27, 1998).
Joseph v. McGinnis, 150 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1998).
United States v. Lettieri, 910 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1990).
Brooks v. Jones, 875 F. 2d 30 (2d Cir. 1989)(reversed)(cover, New York Law Journal)People v. Smith (2d Dept. 1999).
People v. Branch, 259 A.D.2d 556 (2d Dept. 1999)(reversed).
People v. Freddy Hernandez, 259 A.D.2d 708 (2d Dept. 1999)(reversed).
People v. Hartfield, 258 A.D.2d 471 (2d Dept. 1999)(reversed, failure to issue circumstantial evidence charge).
Clara L. v. Paul M., 251 A.D.2d 22 (1st Dept. 1998).
People v. Sydnor, 254 A.D.2d 508 (2nd Dept. 1998).
Pardee v. Pardee, 246 A.D.2d 522 (2d Dept. 1998).
People v. Brown, 244 A.D.2d 348 (2d Dept. 1996).
People v. Hurd, 220 A.D.2d 454 (2d Dept. 1995).
People v. Urena, 220 A.D.2d 454 (2d Dept. 1995).
People v. Hau Van Nguy, (4th Dept. 1994) (unpublished opinion).
In re Malik Kendall (Unpublished decision)(Acquittal on Rape and Sodomy charges, Family Court)(1993).
People v. Richardson, 198 A.D.2d 450 (2d Dept. 1993).
People v. Sibley, 81 N.Y.2d 870 (1993).
People v. Cerilli, 80 N.Y.2d 1016 (1992).
People v. Duke, 181 A.D.2d 908 (2d Dept. 1992).
People v. Ellis, 182 A.D.2d 636 (2d Dept. 1992).
In the Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646 (2d Dept. 1992).
Cromwell v. Ward (1st Dept. 1992) (Reversed)(unpublished opinion).
People v. Horton, 171 A.D.2d 688 (2d Dept. 1991).
In the Matter of Benjamin (Family Court, 1991) (unpublished decision).
People v. Williams, 198 A.D.2d 247 (2d Dept. 1991).
Feldman v. D. & Sons (Appellate Term, Second Department 1998)(unpublished, unreported opinion, reversed, 1997).
Cole v. Keane (2d Cir. 1998)(unpublished opinion)(reversed).
Winokur v. Chesney (3d Cir. 1998)(unpublished opinion)(reversed).
Zeppelin v. Zeppelin, 241 A.D.2d 561 (2d Dept. 1997)
​
Wallack Frieght Lines v. Next Day Express, 245 A.D.2d 367 (2d Dept. 1997)(commercial litigation, reversed).
People v. Brown, 244 A.D.2d 348 (2d Dept. 1997).
People v. Ross, 244 A.D.2d 437 (2d Dept. 1997).
People v. Calendar, 227 A.D.2d 639 (2d Dept. 1996).
People v. Dunn, 224 A.D.2d 708 (2d Dept. 1996).
People v. Richter, 223 A.D.2d 734 (2d Dept. 1996).
In the Matter of Diane Jones, 222 A.D.2d 439 (2d Dept. 1995)(reversed).
People v. Jackson, 202 A.D.2d 689 (2d Dept. 1993).
United States v. Mastros (3rd Cir. 1993)(unpublished opinion)(reversed).
People v. Woods, 226 A.D.2d 569 (2d Dept. 1993).
United States v. Friedberg (2d Cir. 1992)(unpublished decision).
People v. Dwayne Spivey, 177 A.D.2d 216 (1st Dept. 1992)(cover, New York Law Journal).
Shabazz v. Warden, 179 A.D.2d 498 (1st Dept. 1992).
In the Matter of Winston T. (Family Court, 1992)(Juvenile delinquency petitions dismissed)(unpublished decision).
People v. Hoffman, 159 A.D.2d 638 (2d Dept. 1991).
Novick v. Galaso, 159 A.D.2d 638 (1st Dept. 1991).
Plotkin v. Bearings Ltd., 777 F. Supp. 1105 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)(motion granted to dismiss Plaintiff’s case denied)
People v. Timmons, 175 A.D.2d 10 (1st Dept. 1991)(reversed)(cover, New York Law Journal)(“Defendant's guilt of participation in a drug-related massacre/execution of three helpless victims was established by overwhelming evidence including the testimony of three severely wounded survivors, one of whom was a 13-year old girl. Despite the appalling character of these crimes, we are required to reverse by reason of clear indications of jury tampering which surfaced immediately post the verdict and fatally tainted it).
People v. Kirkwood, 165 A.D.2d 881 (2d Dept. 1990)
People v. Lucente (Appellate Term 1990)(Conviction reversed; indictment dismissed)(unpublished decision).
People v. Erik R. Smith, 168 A.D.2d 524 (2d Dept. 1990)(reversed).
People v. Lovansa Barnes, 135 A.D.2d 825 (2d Dept. 1988)(“Ordered that the sentence is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be required to make restitution and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of performance.”).
People v. Ulysses Taylor, 245 A.D.2d 398 (2d Dept. 1987)(“Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50 * * * The record in this case is devoid of evidence that the defendant knew beforehand of, much less [intentionally] participated in the robbery at the Sun Wah Restaurant (see, People v Cummings, supra, at 867). This conclusion is buttressed, inter alia, by the exculpatory testimony of Andre John, one of the perpetrators of the robbery, who stated that the defendant knew nothing about the robbery.”).
People v. Lucius Mason (440.10 Motion granted; Defendant freed from life term for murder)(unpublished opinion)(1988).
