Huntley hearing in New York

2025However, since the defendant failed to raise this specific argument in support of suppression at the Huntley hearing ( see People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 ), it is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Tutt , 38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013 ; People v Grace , 245 AD2d 387, 388 ).

2025However, since the defendant failed to raise this specific argument in support of suppression at the Huntley hearing ( see People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 ), it is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Tutt , 38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013 ; People v Grace , 245 AD2d 387, 388 ).

2010In any event, such claim is without merit, as the record clearly reveals that counsel filed pretrial motions on defendant’s behalf, vigorously represented him at a Huntley hearing and negotiated an advantageous plea that considerably reduced defendant’s sentencing exposure (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Miller, 70 AD3d at 1120-1121 ; People v Fiske, 68 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 800 [2010]; People v Miller, 12 AD3d 852, 853 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]).

2010In any event, such claim is without merit, as the record clearly reveals that counsel filed pretrial motions on defendant’s behalf, vigorously represented him at a Huntley hearing and negotiated an advantageous plea that considerably reduced defendant’s sentencing exposure (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Miller, 70 AD3d at 1120-1121 ; People v Fiske, 68 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 800 [2010]; People v Miller, 12 AD3d 852, 853 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]).

2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).

2021We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).

2008We thus conclude that defense counsel had a strategic explanation for requesting a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement (see generally People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2008We thus conclude that defense counsel had a strategic explanation for requesting a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement (see generally People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2018Initially, we find without merit defendant's contention that County Court erred by failing [*2]to set forth on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law following a Huntley hearing ( see CPL 710.60 [6]; People v Mendoza , 82 NY2d 415, 421 [1993]; People v Pagan , 103 AD3d 978, 979 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1018 [2013]).

2018Initially, we find without merit defendant's contention that County Court erred by failing [*2]to set forth on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law following a Huntley hearing ( see CPL 710.60 [6]; People v Mendoza , 82 NY2d 415, 421 [1993]; People v Pagan , 103 AD3d 978, 979 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1018 [2013]).

2023A motion seeking to suppress the statements in question would have had little or no chance of success ( see People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]).

2023A motion seeking to suppress the statements in question would have had little or no chance of success ( see People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]).

2024Conclusions of Law At a Huntley hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the voluntariness of a defendant's statement ( see People v Witherspoon , 66 NY2d 973 [1985]; People v Holland , 48 NY2d 861 [1979]; People v Anderson , 42 NY2d 35 [1977]; People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 [1965]; People v Loucks , 125 AD3d 890 [2d Dept 2015]).

2024Conclusions of Law At a Huntley hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the voluntariness of a defendant's statement ( see People v Witherspoon , 66 NY2d 973 [1985]; People v Holland , 48 NY2d 861 [1979]; People v Anderson , 42 NY2d 35 [1977]; People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 [1965]; People v Loucks , 125 AD3d 890 [2d Dept 2015]).

2020It is well settled that "[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of [*2]success' " ( Caban , 5 NY3d at 152 ) and, here, defendant failed to show that a Huntley hearing would have resulted in the suppression of her statements to the fire and police investigators ( see People v Burns , 122 AD3d 1435 , 1436-1437 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 927 [2015]).

2020It is well settled that "[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of [*2]success' " ( Caban , 5 NY3d at 152 ) and, here, defendant failed to show that a Huntley hearing would have resulted in the suppression of her statements to the fire and police investigators ( see People v Burns , 122 AD3d 1435 , 1436-1437 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 927 [2015]).

2008Turning to the Huntley issue, the determination as to whether a defendant has made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights is “essentially a factual issue that must be determined according to the circumstances of each case.” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288 [1984].) A defendant with limited command of the English language must have sufficient understanding to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings in order to effect a valid waiver of his rights.

1987That branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements was properly denied since it appears from the record of the Huntley hearing, which consists solely of the uncontradicted testimony of the People’s witnesses, that the defendant’s initial statement was not prompted by interrogation or its functional equivalent, and his subsequent statements were made after he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285 ; People v Rykaczewski, 121 AD2d 409 ; People v Gloskey, 105 AD2d 871 ; People v Baez, 79 AD2d 608 ).

2010Any alleged deficiency in the notice served by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 is irrelevant since the defendant sought to suppress the statements and the County Court, after a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), determined that they were admissible (see CPL 710.30 [33; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903, 904-905 [1996]; People v Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1458 [2009]; People v Torres, 2 AD3d 367 [2003]; People v Miles, 251 AD2d 1012 [1998]; People v Perrilla, 247 AD2d 326, 326-327 [1998]).

2010Any alleged deficiency in the notice served by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 is irrelevant since the defendant sought to suppress the statements and the County Court, after a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), determined that they were admissible (see CPL 710.30 [33; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903, 904-905 [1996]; People v Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1458 [2009]; People v Torres, 2 AD3d 367 [2003]; People v Miles, 251 AD2d 1012 [1998]; People v Perrilla, 247 AD2d 326, 326-327 [1998]).

2025Although CPL § 710.30 does not require the People to serve notice if they intend to use a statement solely for impeachment on cross-examination ( see People v Rigo , 273 AD2d 258, 258 [2d Dept. 2000]; People v Rudolph , 1345 AD2d 539 , 540 [2d Dept. 1987]), if notice is served and defendant then claims that the statement was involuntary, a Huntley hearing must be held ( see People v Weaver , 49 NY2d 1012, 1013 [1980]; People v Bingham , 144 AD2d 682, 682 [2d Dept. 1988]).

2025Although CPL § 710.30 does not require the People to serve notice if they intend to use a statement solely for impeachment on cross-examination ( see People v Rigo , 273 AD2d 258, 258 [2d Dept. 2000]; People v Rudolph , 1345 AD2d 539 , 540 [2d Dept. 1987]), if notice is served and defendant then claims that the statement was involuntary, a Huntley hearing must be held ( see People v Weaver , 49 NY2d 1012, 1013 [1980]; People v Bingham , 144 AD2d 682, 682 [2d Dept. 1988]).

2025A Huntley hearing is mandatory even if the statement is used solely for impeachment purposes ( see People v Clemons , 166 AD2d 363, 365 [1st Dept 1990]; cf. People v Maerling , 64 NY2d 134, 142 [1984]; see also People v Ashley , 15 Misc 3d 80, 82 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 863 [2007] ["while oral statements which have been suppressed pursuant to CPL 710.30 may not be used as evidence-in-chief, they may be used for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a defendant during cross-examination and on rebuttal"]).

2025A Huntley hearing is mandatory even if the statement is used solely for impeachment purposes ( see People v Clemons , 166 AD2d 363, 365 [1st Dept 1990]; cf. People v Maerling , 64 NY2d 134, 142 [1984]; see also People v Ashley , 15 Misc 3d 80, 82 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 863 [2007] ["while oral statements which have been suppressed pursuant to CPL 710.30 may not be used as evidence-in-chief, they may be used for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a defendant during cross-examination and on rebuttal"]).

2013This, along with his valid appeal waiver, effectively waived his present claim that a Huntley hearing should have been held to determine the admissibility of his statements to police, which are not contained in the record on appeal (see People v Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201, 1201-1202 [2013]; see also People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]).

2013This, along with his valid appeal waiver, effectively waived his present claim that a Huntley hearing should have been held to determine the admissibility of his statements to police, which are not contained in the record on appeal (see People v Morrison, 106 AD3d 1201, 1201-1202 [2013]; see also People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]).

2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).

2025A review of the record of the Huntley hearing ( see People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) clearly demonstrates that defendant's written statement was not made until after she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Anderson , 42 NY2d 35 [1977]).

2025The burden of establishing the voluntariness of a suspect's statement beyond a reasonable doubt at a Huntley hearing is on the People ( People v. Holland , 48 NY2d 861 ; People v. Anderson , 42 NY2d 35 ; People v. Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 ).

2025The burden of establishing the voluntariness of a suspect's statement beyond a reasonable doubt at a Huntley hearing is on the People ( People v. Holland , 48 NY2d 861 ; People v. Anderson , 42 NY2d 35 ; People v. Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 ).

2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).

2021We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).

2016The defendant’s additional contention that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) to address whether the unnoticed statement was voluntarily made is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

2016The defendant’s additional contention that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) to address whether the unnoticed statement was voluntarily made is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

2001The Huntley hearing transcript demonstrates that defendant was not subjected to prolonged questioning (compare, People v Rivers, supra, at 479; People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 174 ) and that defendant deliberately sought out Batrowny and initiated the conversation (see, People v Gonzales, supra, at 940).

2001The Huntley hearing transcript demonstrates that defendant was not subjected to prolonged questioning (compare, People v Rivers, supra, at 479; People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 174 ) and that defendant deliberately sought out Batrowny and initiated the conversation (see, People v Gonzales, supra, at 940).

2016Because the admission of those statements at trial cannot be deemed harmless error (see generally Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 237 ), we hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to reopen the Huntley hearing with respect to those recorded statements (see People v Stroman, 280 AD2d 887, 887 [2001]).

2016Because the admission of those statements at trial cannot be deemed harmless error (see generally Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 237 ), we hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to reopen the Huntley hearing with respect to those recorded statements (see People v Stroman, 280 AD2d 887, 887 [2001]).

2015First, the evidence at the Huntley hearing established that there was a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]).

2015First, the evidence at the Huntley hearing established that there was a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]).

2008The totality of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation at the station house, as revealed at a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the defendant’s videotaped statement was voluntarily made (see People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 13 [1980]; People v Hasty, 25 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).

2008The totality of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation at the station house, as revealed at a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the defendant’s videotaped statement was voluntarily made (see People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 13 [1980]; People v Hasty, 25 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).