New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90 (2026)

Appeal to court of appeals from order of intermediate appellate court; in what cases authorized

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 450.90 Appeal to court of appeals from order of intermediate appellate
           court; in what cases authorized.
  1. Provided that a certificate granting leave to appeal is issued
pursuant to section 460.20, an appeal may, except as provided in
subdivision two, be taken to the court of appeals by either the
defendant or the people from any adverse or partially adverse order of
an intermediate appellate court entered upon an appeal taken to such
intermediate appellate court pursuant to section 450.10, 450.15, or
450.20, or from an order granting or denying a motion to set aside an
order of an intermediate appellate court on the ground of ineffective
assistance or wrongful deprivation of appellate counsel, or by either
the defendant or the people from any adverse or partially adverse order
of an intermediate appellate court entered upon an appeal taken to such
intermediate appellate court from an order entered pursuant to section
440.46 or section 440.47 of this chapter. An order of an intermediate
appellate court is adverse to the party who was the appellant in such
court when it affirms the judgment, sentence or order appealed from, and
is adverse to the party who was the respondent in such court when it
reverses the judgment, sentence or order appealed from. An appellate
court order which modifies a judgment or order appealed from is
partially adverse to each party.
  2. An appeal to the court of appeals from an order of an intermediate
appellate court reversing or modifying a judgment, sentence or order of
a criminal court may be taken only if:
  (a) The court of appeals determines that the intermediate appellate
court's determination of reversal or modification was on the law alone
or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law,
would not have led to reversal or modification; or
  (b) The appeal is based upon a contention that corrective action, as
that term is defined in section 470.10, taken or directed by the
intermediate appellate court was illegal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: People v. Sevencan, 909 N.E.2d 572 (NY 2009).
People v. Sevencan, 909 N.E.2d 572 (NY 2009). “In People v Bautista ( 7 NY3d 838 [2006]) this Court held that similar language in the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act did not permit an appeal to this Court from an Appellate Division order affirming a denial of resentencing, because the act did not make such an order appealable under…”
Harrison v. Artuz, 105 F. Supp. 2d 101 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “In an order dated April 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed Harrison's application "because the order sought to be appealed is not appealable under Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90(1).” (Affidavit of ADA Michael Gore, Aug.”
Mullins v. Bennett, 408 F. Supp. 2d 160 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). “Mullins appealed the decision to the New York State Court of Appeals; on January 12, 2000, that court dismissed the appeal because, at that time, denials of coram nobis applications were not appeal-able under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90(1). This pro se habeas…”
Dean v. Noeth (W.D.N.Y. 2022). “30, 2018), (“Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals in cases of this nature are governed by N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90 (1).”
— N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90(1) — 2 cases
Harrison v. Artuz, 105 F. Supp. 2d 101 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “In an order dated April 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed Harrison's application "because the order sought to be appealed is not appealable under Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90(1).” (Affidavit of ADA Michael Gore, Aug.”
Mullins v. Bennett, 408 F. Supp. 2d 160 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). “Mullins appealed the decision to the New York State Court of Appeals; on January 12, 2000, that court dismissed the appeal because, at that time, denials of coram nobis applications were not appeal-able under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law § 450.90(1). This pro se habeas…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.