People v. Williams

2026 NY Slip Op 01996 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · April 1, 2026 · No. 2024-09279

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the defendant's judgment by vacating his conviction for criminal contempt in the second degree as a lesser included offense and dismissing that count. The court otherwise affirmed, rejecting or declining to review claims concerning suppression, alleged investigative failures, missing police notes, absent witnesses, and surveillance footage.

Holdings

  1. The second-degree criminal-contempt conviction was required to be vacated because that offense was a lesser included offense of first-degree criminal contempt; the count and sentence were dismissed.
  2. The challenge to suppression of defendant's statements was academic because the statements were not introduced at trial.
  3. The loss of the police officer's notes did not constitute reversible error.
  4. The People's failure to call the complainant and investigating detective did not inherently deprive defendant of a fair trial, and the record did not support an unfavorable inference because there was no showing that either witness would provide material, noncumulative testimony favorable to the defense.
  5. The claim that police should have obtained surveillance footage was speculative and could not be reviewed on the appellate record.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the conviction for criminal contempt in the second degree had to be vacated because it was a lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the first degree.
  2. Whether the challenge to the suppression of statements was academic because the statements were not introduced at trial.
  3. Whether alleged police investigatory failures, the loss of police notes, and the People's failure to call certain witnesses deprived defendant of a fair trial or required reversal.
  4. Whether the failure to call the complainant and investigating detective warranted an unfavorable inference or otherwise deprived defendant of a fair trial.
  5. Whether the claim that police should have obtained surveillance footage was reviewable on the appellate record.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • People v. Miller, 6 NY3d 295, 300(applied)
  • People v. Saenger, 202 AD3d 1001, mod 39 NY3d 433(applied)
  • People v. Mingo, 66 AD3d 1043, 1045(applied)
  • People v. Lester, 208 AD3d 684, 685(applied)
  • People v. Joseph, 97 AD3d 838, 839(applied)
  • People v. Carlucci, 80 AD3d 621(applied)
  • People v. Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642(applied)
  • People v. Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887(applied)
  • People v. Scattareggia, 152 AD2d 679, 679-680(applied)
  • People v. Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 931(applied)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…