Awards Given to 3 Who Work to Improve and Protect the Process that is Due

At NYSDA’s 58th Annual Meeting & Conference, two attorneys and a member of the State Assembly were recognized for their stellar support of due process, public defense, and zealous advocacy.

Josette D. Colon, Schuyler County Public Defender, received the Kevin M. Andersen Memorial Award. In under two years, Colon transformed the office from a one-person operation to a collegial, well-resourced office fulfilling the right to counsel, with staff whose praise for her resounded throughout the presentation of her award. Her legal skills and her leadership abilities were lauded, as noted in more detail here.

Kent V. Moston, Legal Training Director, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County and retired Attorney in Chief of the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, accepted the Wilfred R. O’Connor Award. In 50 years at these Legal Aid offices, Moston has not only demonstrated outstanding legal acumen but also dedication to helping other lawyers provide quality representation as well. Attorneys across the state, as well as NYSDA and other organizations, have benefitted greatly from Moston’s work. Learn more here.

Latrice M. Walker, NYS Assemblymember from District 55 in Brooklyn, received the Jonathan E. Gradess Service of Justice Award for her zealous commitment to the rule of law, due process, and the right to effective assistance of counsel for those who appear in criminal and family courts around New York State. Walker’s steadfast defense of legislative reforms of the criminal legal system, including discovery and bail laws, garnered praise. So did her continuing efforts to pass laws protecting families from unnecessary separation and trauma due to the family regulatory system. Learn more about Walker’s focus on justice in the media release here. Language from her prepared acceptance remarks can be found on her Facebook page.

Discovery Law Amendments Take Effect; NYSDA Tracking Impact         

The amendments to CPL article 245 and 30.30, which were passed as part of the State Budget and discussed in the June 2nd edition of News Picks, took effect on Aug. 7, 2025. The 2025 amendments to CPL article 245 and 30.30 in context are posted on NYSDA’s Discovery page along with video clips from the Assembly Debate on the amendments. Summaries of some of the changes appear below. Please refer to the links on the Discovery page for the full text of the changes.

•  Challenging Certificates of Compliance (COCs): Amended CPL 245.50(4)

The defense must move to challenge the prosecution’s COC within 35 days of filing and service, “provided that the prosecution has filed an indictment or information prior to filing the certificate of compliance.” 245.50(4)(c). Exceptions to the 35-day period are noted below and set forth in (4)(c).

Note: In pending cases where a COC was filed and served on or before August 7th, defense counsel must make a written or oral motion to challenge the COC or request an extension by September 11th.

A motion challenging a COC or supplemental COC must include “an affirmation by the moving party that, after the filing of the opposing party’s certificate of compliance, such moving party timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the opposing party or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached.” The parties can confer informally, including by email, phone, or other reasonable means. Note: the phrase, “as soon as practicable,” has been deleted from 245.50.

Extensions and Exceptions

The amended statute authorizes courts to grant requests for extensions of time to challenge a COC beyond the 35-day period. The request must be made before the 35-day period expires and must show good cause for the extension. 245.50(4)(c)(i). The additional time will be excluded from the speedy trial calculation pursuant to 30.30(4)(b), unless the court finds that the prosecutor unreasonably delayed in responding to the defense’s good faith efforts to confer or the prosecutor did not file the COC in good faith. 245.50(4)(c)(i)

The new 245.50(4)(c)(ii) also allows a party to file a motion to challenge a COC outside the 35-day period “where the grounds for such challenge are based upon a material change in circumstances, including by not limited to the belated disclosure of discoverable material pursuant to section 245.20 of this article, or, where the party entitled to disclosure could not, with due diligence, have known of the specific and particularized matters forming the basis of the challenge prior to the expiration of such period.

• Prosecution COCs and Supplemental COCs: amended 245.50(1) [new language is underlined]

This subdivision provides that, when the prosecution “has, pursuant to this section, exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquires and efforts to obtain and provide” discovery required under 245.20(1), except for discovery lost or destroyed as provided in 245.80(1)(b) and except for material or information that is subject to a protective order under 245.70, it shall file and serve the COC. The COC must state that, “after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery, the prosecution has disclosed and made available all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery. It shall also identify the items provided. The prosecution shall also identify the items that the prosecution is required to disclose and of which the prosecution is aware, but has been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence as evaluated under this section.”

Supplemental COCs “shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence as assessed under this section.”

• Assessing Due Diligence: New 245.50(5)

Under this subdivision, courts are directed to “look at the totality of the party’s efforts to comply with the provisions of this article, rather than assess the party’s efforts item by item.” A non-exclusive list of 10 relevant factors for assessing the prosecutor’s due diligence are set forth in 245.50(5)(a), which includes the factors set forth in People v Bay (41 NY3d 200 [2023]) and new factors, such as whether the prosecution’s delayed disclosure “was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense’s ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial.” Notably, “no one factor shall be determinative,” and the court must “explain the basis for its determination on the record or in writing.” 245.50(5)(b).

• Speedy Trial and COCs: Amended 30.30(5)

“The court may deem the people not ready for trial based on the people’s failure to comply with the provisions of [article 245] only if it finds that the people’s certificate of compliance that accompanied or preceded the people’s statement of readiness at issue was invalid under section 245.50 of this chapter.”

A new CPL 30.30(5)(b) sets forth the same due diligence factors that are in the new 245.50(5).

• Protective Order Motions: New CPL 245.70(8)

Motions filed in good faith pursuant to 245.70(1) or (2) “shall be deemed a pre-trial motion for the purposes of” CPL 30.30(4)(a).

• Prosecution’s Possession or Control: CPL 245.20(1) and amended 245.20(2)

The prosecution must still disclose material and information that is in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution’s direction or control.” The final bill rejected the original proposal’s language distinguishing between items in the prosecution’s “actual possession” and items in the possession of law enforcement.

The amended subdivision 2 replaced “provided that the prosecutor shall not be required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum material or information which the defendant may thereby obtain” with this: “The prosecutor shall not be required to obtain material or information if it may be obtained with the use of a subpoena duces tecum where the defense is able to obtain the same material with the use of a subpoena duces tecum.”

• Redactions Permitted: Amended CPL 245.20(6)

This subdivision is amended to authorize redaction without the need for a protective order of social security numbers; tax numbers; physical addresses or other forms of contact information of witnesses, provided that for witnesses disclosed under 245.20(1)(c), the disclosing party provides at least one form of adequate contact information; and material or information not otherwise required to be disclosed under 245.20(1) so long as the party making the redactions “provides the underlying reason for the redactions.” A new provision was added requiring the disclosing party to furnish an alternative form or adequate contact information for a witness if the contact information provided is “incorrect or inoperative.”

• Federal and State Constitutional Obligations: new CPL 245.90

“Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the people’s obligations to comply with federal and state constitutional law.”

• Timing of Disclosure of Statements Before Grand Jury Testimony: Amended 245.10(1)(c)

The timing of the prosecution’s disclosure of statements by the defendant before the scheduled time for the defendant to testify before the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50 has been amended to allow for disclosure no later than 24 hours before the scheduled time in limited circumstances.

• Initial Discovery for the Defendant: Amended CPL 245.20(1)

Minor amendments were made to some of the items listed in subdivision 1, including the deletion of the “including but not limited to” language and the addition of a catchall provision in (1)(v): “Any other material and information relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case or a defense thereto that are not designated in paragraphs (a) through (u) of this subdivision.”

The amendments and their effect on discovery practice were discussed in-depth at NYSDA’s Annual Conference last month. Defenders with questions about the changes should contact the Public Defense Backup Center. We strongly encourage defenders to share decisions they receive post-August 7th (with appropriate redactions) and any information about implementation in your jurisdiction with the Public Defense Backup Center via email (info@nysda.org), our Contact Form, or by calling 518-465-3524.

Revised Ethical Guidelines for NY Prosecutors Include Newest Discovery Laws and Prosecutorial Conduct Commission

The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York (DAASNY) recently issued a 2025 update of “The Right Thing”: Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors. A July 11th Law.com article about the release noted that changes include the addition of information about New York State’s Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct (CPC) and the latest changes to discovery laws.

The section about the discovery law, which it characterizes as “onerous,” encourages pre-emptive action to avoid due diligence challenges: “Prosecutors may not assert they have exercised due diligence and acted in good faith unless they have, in fact, done so. Asserting this statutory compliance without having actually complied with the onerous discovery requirements constitutes an ethical violation (see, e.g., Rules 3.3[a][1], 8.4[c]) and may result in serious consequences to the prosecutor. Thus, any prosecutor signing a COC should be prepared to establish all the steps taken to comply with the prosecutor’s discovery obligations and the prosecutor would be well-served to detail in the COC document itself the actions taken that establish the prosecutor’s due diligence and good faith in seeking to obtain the outstanding items of discovery.” [Emphasis added.]

As to the CPC, the new DAASNY guide describes the Commission in some detail (pp. 8-10). Included is concrete advice such as telling line prosecutors who have been notified that the Commission has received a complaint about them that they would “be well-served to notify the District Attorney of the county where the challenged conduct occurred” and discuss a “mechanism for legal representation before the Commission.”

The Law.com article noted that the CPC had a slow start. One example given was that there had been no report on “a highly publicized incident in 2024 involving Monroe County DA Sandra Doorley, who refused to immediately pull over for a police officer who had stopped her for speeding, instead continuing to her home, where she called the officer’s supervisor.” On July 15th, a media release from the Commission said that it had recommended public censure of Doorley; the report, dated June 26th, is available on the Commission’s website. In early August, the Democrat and Chronicle reported on Doorley’s announcement that she was retiring effective Aug. 31, 2025.

WXXInews.org coverage of the report on Doorley noted that the CPC “has received 286 complaints since opening its public portal in October,” with ten having been authorized for investigation, and 8 having been dismissed.

NYSDA is offering a web training, Administering Justice: Utilizing New York's

Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct in Defense Practice, on September 23rd, see Association News below.

A Second Appeals Court Finds Family Court and Child Welfare Agencies Lack Authority to Supervise Non-Respondent Parents

In a newly released decision, Matter of R.A. (2025 NY Slip Op 04295), the First Department found it “unlawful for Family Court to order that the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) supervise a nonrespondent parent who was already caring for their child prior to the filing of the Family Court Act article 10 petition. We find that ACS's stated policy of monitoring the nonrespondent parent in such cases is not permitted under Family Court Act § 1017 or any other provision of the Family Court Act, including and especially where the reason ACS seeks supervision is that the nonrespondent parent is a domestic violence survivor.” [Footnote omitted.] The issue of the constitutionality of the practice was not addressed, as the case was decided on statutory grounds. Although the nonrespondent parent in this case already received the relief requested, the First Department applied the exception to the mootness doctrine because it “raises a significant and novel issue that is likely to reoccur, yet evade review ....” [Citations omitted.]

This is the second appellate division decision to find the practice of supervising non-respondent parents illegal. The first decision, Matter of Sapphire W. (2025 NY Slip Op 00662), was decided by the Second Department earlier this year (featured in the Feb. 18th edition of News Picks).

COA Rules Appellate Division has Plenary Power for De Novo Review of DVSJA Appeals 

In People v Brenda WW., the Court of Appeals held that when reviewing appeals involving the application of the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA), the appellate division is empowered, in accordance with the New Yorks State Constitution, to exercise de novo review and substitute its own findings and conclusions without the limitation or necessity of finding any abuse of discretion by the lower court.

The case, discussed previously in the January 16, 2024 issue of News Picks, presented circumstances where the resentencing motion court had denied relief in a CPL 440.47 application, after which the Third Department reversed and granted the application, imposing a sentence that included a term of post-release supervision (PRS) that it determined was fully satisfied by the time the applicant had spent in prison under the original sentence. 

However, while the Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division had the power to review and grant such motions after a denial and impose its own sentence under its discretionary plenary power, the Court further ruled that that a reviewing court does not have the authority to impose a sentence that, in effect, avoids service of a period of post-release supervision.

Rejecting the argument, supported by a submission from the Attorney General’s Office, that the calculation of when a sentence terminates after service of incarceration and PRS is fundamentally an administrative function of the Department of Corrections and Community Alternatives, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme of PL 70.45(2)(f) and 60.12(8) mandates the imposition and actual service of a period of PRS and, consequently, an appeals court is not authorized to re-sentence in a manner that evades this requirement. 

Judge Singas, joined by Judge Troutman, dissented, noting that, “Courts frequently in the normal course impose sentences of imprisonment and postrelease supervision that DOCCS determines to have been previously served in whole or in part,” and that the majority’s “conclusion is at odds with DOCCS's longstanding practice of crediting excess time spent in prison toward postrelease supervision.” The dissent further noted that majority holding “is at odds with the DVSJA's purpose of permitting resentencing that reflects modern understandings of the psychological effects of intimate partner violence. Indeed, the DVSJA was intended to grant ‘much deserved relief for incarcerated individuals who pose no threat to public safety,’ and ‘address the years of injustice faced by survivors whose lives have been shattered by domestic abuse and decrease the likelihood of survivors being victimized by the very system that should help protect them.’ On the other hand, ‘[i]t is well documented that postrelease supervision is a burden, especially for women who are domestic violence survivors. The strict constraints of postrelease supervision can mimic the abusive relationships that domestic violence survivors experienced in their relationships prior to incarceration.’” [Citations omitted.].

The matter was remanded to the Third Department for reconsideration of its sentence, considering this restriction on resentencing, to assess whether the maximum period of supervision that it imposed was based on the incorrect presumption that the time spent in incarceration beyond the DVSJA resentence could be credited against PRS resulting in the termination of the sentence in full.

People v Angela VV.

In a second case before the Court of Appeals the same day, People v Angela VV., the Court affirmed the denial of relief under 440.47, holding: “After conducting its own review of the record, [the Third Department] agreed with County Court's assessment of defendant's testimony and the value of the forensic report. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish defendant's burden as to the second and third prongs. Regarding prong three, the Court concluded that defendant's original sentence was not ‘unduly harsh,’ given the ‘chilling account’ of the murder as described by the defendant, defendant's failure to accept responsibility for her actions, and her disciplinary history while incarcerated. Having determined that defendant failed to meet her burden as to the relevant factors, the Court held that resentencing under the DVSJA was not warranted. The findings made by the Appellate Division are supported by the record and are otherwise beyond the scope of our review.” [Citations omitted.]

Other DVSJA News

In People v E.G., the Kings County Supreme Court, in a Decision and Order dated Oct. 22, 2024, granted a hearing over objection by the prosecution under CPL 440.47 in circumstances that encompassed an expanded view of what the statutory language “at the time of the offense” contemplates in determining eligibility for relief under the DVSJA sentencing guidelines. In opposition to the hearing, the prosecution argued that, “‘[t]o suggest that ongoing trauma from prior abuse is included in the DVSJA is an overly broad reading of the statute ….’” [Emphasis in original.] The court rejected the argument for two reasons: the argument, “in effect seeks this court to hold that the abuse be contemporaneous with the offense,” which was rejected in People v Addimando (197 AD3d 106 [2nd Dept 2021]), and such an interpretation of the facts at issue “glosses over one important fact … irrespective of the [past] abuse by [other family members], the defendant alleges abuse contemporaneous with the crime. Thus, falling squarely within the DVSJA.” The court then engaged in an analysis of the cumulative effect of the abuse together with the events immediately surrounding the crime, adopting a full-picture approach in its review.

Analogous to a “full picture” and cumulative analysis approach to what “at the time of the offense” may implicate, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Barnes v Felix (No 23-1239 [5/15/2025]) in which it rejected the Fifth Circuit’s long-standing “moment-of-threat” rule in a police misconduct excessive force case. The Court held that, “Most notable here, the ‘totality of the circumstances’ inquiry into a use of force has no time limit. Of course, the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most …. But earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones. …. Prior events may show, for example, why a reasonable officer would have perceived otherwise ambiguous conduct as threatening. Or instead they may show why such an officer would have perceived the same conduct as innocuous.”

The Barnes decision cited the amicus curiae brief of the Department of Justice in its discussion of totality of the circumstances analysis: “Or as the Federal Government puts the point, those later, ‘in-the-moment’ facts ‘cannot be hermetically sealed off from the context in which they arose.’” [Citation omitted.] Justice Kagan further wrote for the court, “A court deciding a use-of-force case cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on chronological blinders.”

While clearly not on direct point, the language and analysis in Barnes is highly analogous to the kind of comprehensive examination that should be conducted in DVSJA cases as the first two prongs are considered, i.e., “at the time of” and “significant contributing factor.” The arc of domestic violence suffered by a survivor cannot be hermetically sealed off from the context in which an applicant’s conduct arose, and while PL 60.12 does indicate a “temporal nexus,” courts must take care not to be overly constrained by chronological binders that preclude consideration of relevant traumatic experience and response.

Thanks to Kate Mogulescu at Brooklyn Law School and the Survivors Justice Project for sharing the E.G. and Barnes v Felix decisions and offering creative insights as DVSJA jurisprudence continues to evolve.

Newsletters Offer Tips and Warnings About Immigration Repercussions Facing Clients

The June newsletter from the Western New York Regional Immigration Assistance Center (WNY RIAC) includes a recent example of how minor criminal convictions that are not statutory grounds of removal can have adverse consequences for an immigrant client. The Second Circuit upheld denial, as a matter of discretion, of an application for permanent residency by a person with three disorderly conducts. “The government reasoned that these convictions showed a ‘disregard for criminal laws.’” Xia v Bondi, 137 F4th 85 (5/19/2025). The June issue also includes detailed advice for defenders on interviewing clients to obtain information needed to evaluate immigration consequences when the clients are understandably fearful of divulging such information.

The July issue of WNY RIAC’s newsletter includes a forceful reminder that RIACs are not funded to represent individuals, and clients should not be referred there for help on their immigration cases. Defenders—whether from an institutional office or assigned counsel—with clients in criminal or family court cases should contact their RIAC for information and guidance on possible immigration consequences of the state cases. The July newsletter also reports on developments on lawsuits regarding the Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), which prohibits civil immigration arrests in or around New York State courthouses without a judicial warrant, and Nassau County’s agreement with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A recent article reported that twenty District Attorneys from around New York State filed an amicus brief in the federal DOJ’s lawsuit challenging POCA, arguing “that the law is critical to their prosecutions.”

Axon’s Draft One AI-Assisted Police Report Software Purposely Does Not Store Drafts

We last touched on Axon’s Draft One in our Sept. 17, 2024 News Picks from NYSDA Staff. Despite the name, Draft One software does not save the original draft or any subsequent drafts, as recently reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Instead, the officer user copies and pastes that draft into the body of a police report, closes the window in Draft One, and that draft is gone without any record. A quote from an Axon product manager is telling: “‘So we don’t store the original draft and that’s by design and that’s really because the last thing we want to do is create more disclosure headaches for our customers and our attorney’s offices.’” Audit trails for this software are also very limited, only revealing basic actions within a report and basic actions within the system, such as log-ins, uploads, and evidence access.

You may expect police agencies to keep data that shows officers are editing AI-generated Axon Draft One reports, and you may expect to be able to differentiate between an AI-generated section and human-generated one. “But Draft One defies all these expectations, offering meager oversight features that deliberately conceal how it is used.”

The EFF article posed some important questions you should be aware of when reviewing police reports:

•  “Are officers meaningfully editing and adding to the AI draft? Or are they reflexively rubber-stamping the drafts to move on as quickly as possible?
• How often are officers finding and correcting errors made by the AI, and are there patterns to these errors?
• If there is inappropriate language or a fabrication in the final report, was it introduced by the AI or the officer?
• Is the AI overstepping in its interpretation of the audio? If a report says, ‘the subject made a threatening gesture,’ was that added by the officer, or did the AI make a factual assumption based on the audio? If a suspect uses metaphorical slang, does the AI document literally? If a subject says ‘yeah’ through a conversation as a verbal acknowledgement that they’re listening to what the officer says, is that interpreted as an agreement or a confession?”

For more information about obtaining Draft One reports, see the EFF’s Guide.

Here in New York, the Municipal Police Training Council recently issued a Body Worn Camera Model Policy with a section entitled “Use of Artificial Intelligence Report Writing.” The brief guidance is summarized in two points: (1) consult with the District Attorney’s Office when creating policy around AI use in reports; and (2) follow agency policy when drafting AI-assisted reports. We anticipate further guidance and legislation as this technology will only be expanding in the coming months and years.

License Plate Reader Used Illegally by Federal and State Agents will Expand into Private Sector

After it was revealed by 404 Media that local police departments search through Flock’s AI-powered automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system to assist ICE investigations, Flock says it is preventing agencies nationally from searching cameras in Illinois, California, and Virginia. Normally, Flock allows local police departments to search every camera in its national network. However, state laws that bar the sharing of ALPR data with out-of-state agencies or for immigration enforcement purposes likely render this practice illegal. The Illinois Secretary of State’s office announced that it is investigating whether Illinois police departments violated state law in sharing ALPR data with a Texas sheriff’s office that was hunting a woman for seeking an abortion.

On June 23, Flock threatened that it would be launching a “business network” to allow the private sector to participate in the decentralized mass surveillance of American transit. “For years, our law enforcement customers have used the power of a shared network to identify threats, connect cases, and reduce crime. Now, we’re extending that same network effect to the private sector,” Flock’s CEO announced.

Lab Results Cause Bronx DA to Drop Case Against Public Defender

Seizure of mail and papers entering jails and prisons has been commonplace in New York for quite some time now. Earlier this summer, a public defender in Queens was arrested for allegedly bringing papers laced with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to his client who was held at Rikers Island. The arrest was based on a canine “alert” and a “positive” presumptive color change field test. The Correction Officers Benevolent Association President used these field tests as another reason to push for scanning of paper documents to limit the flow of contraband into the prison.

Ultimately, confirmatory lab testing revealed that the papers did not contain THC. This result is part of an ever-growing list of embarrassing and inaccurate field test results, some of which are detailed in the article from the New York Daily News. According to a November 2024 report from the NYC Department of Investigation, NYC Department of Correction policy already “prohibits reliance on field tests to arrest visitors to its facilities in the absence of other evidence,” and the report specifically advised against arrests of anyone based on “field tests in the absence of evidence corroborating the presence of narcotics.” The NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision changed its policy to require confirmatory testing before imposing discipline on a person who is incarcerated after a November 2023 report from the State of New York Offices of the Inspector General.

Washington State Sets New Workload Limits        

The Washington State Supreme Court, on June 9th, “ruled on a new substantial reduction in caseload limits for public defenders that can be phased in over the next decade, to take effect on January 1, 2026,” as reported on MyClallamCounty.com. This will ultimately cut caseloads by about two thirds. The new order “isn’t the final word,” as the Washington State Standard said on June 6th. “New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place.” A Seattle Times article pointed out that the court’s action did not mirror completely “new standards adopted last year by the Washington State Bar Association.” For instance, the court standards only encourage, but do not require, “case weighting, with lower caps for certain case types, like murders and other serious felonies.” A 2024 article about the Bar Association’s standards discussed national ones stemming from the 2023 National Public Defense Workload Study. The Oct. 4, 2023, edition of News Picks included an item on those national standards.

Current New York caseload standards may be accessed on NYSDA’s Public Defender Standards webpage and through the ILS Standards webpage.

ADA Anniversary Can Highlight Disability Issues Facing Defenders

July 26th was the 35th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Events and statements marking the date, and a month of celebration, largely emanated from disability rights and advocacy groups and state offices. The Northeast ADA Center sponsored a July 23rd webinar; the state Office for the Aging posted a notice recognizing ADA Month, as did the New York City Department of Records & Information Services; and a New York State ADA Celebration was held on the anniversary date.

The anniversary comes a month after the U.S. Supreme Court held, in A.J.T. v Osseo Area Schools (No. 24–249 [6/12/2025]), that the same standards apply to ADA claims based on educational services that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The decision buoyed the ADA, overturning “a longstanding, problematic Eighth Circuit Court precedent that required schoolchildren to prove ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ by school officials when seeking relief for disability-related discrimination,” according to the Education Law Center.

In 2023, NYSDA presented a CLE program entitled, Representing Parents with Disabilities: Strategies and Solutions for Preserving Their Rights, by nationally recognized Professor Robin Powell. Family defenders with questions on this topic, or those looking to access a recording of the training, should contact Family Court Staff Attorney Kim Bode at kbode@NYSDA.org. Additionally, NYSDA’s family defense resource page contains resources for parents with disabilities. 

ADA requirements provide a basis for argument in child regulatory matters, though it may not always win the day. Materials offered at last year’s Annual Conference included a discussion of the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Lacee L., 32 NY3d 219 (10/18/2018), which said that “[a]lthough ACS undoubtedly must comply with the ADA, ACS's failure to offer or provide certain services at the time a six-month permanency reporting period ends does not necessarily mean that ACS has failed to make ‘reasonable efforts’ [and] Family Court is not required to determine compliance with the ADA in the course of a permanency proceeding.” A discussion about application of the ADA to departments of social services in other states, including a mention of Lacee L., can be found in a recent Maryland case: “we hold that the Department is generally required under the ADA to make reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in rendering reunification efforts in CINA cases, as long as the parents make such disabilities, as well as the accommodations they require, known to the Department.” In re Z.F. & B.F., No. 1609, 2025 WL 1805471 (Md. Ct. App. 7/1/2025).

Two years ago, the July-October issue of NYSDA’s newsletter, the Backup Center REPORT, noted that the ADA “may affect state entities with whom defenders and their clients interact.” Along with family matters, the item discussed the ADA’s possible applicability to drug courts, particularly regarding access to addiction medications.

The Oct. 4, 2023, edition of News Picks noted a proposed court rule that would authorize trial judges to entertain ex parte accommodations with the ADA. On Feb. 16, 2024, Part 52 of the Rules of the Chief Judge was issued, setting out procedures for such requests.

A recent series of reports announced by the MacArthur Foundation examines “the overrepresentation of disabled people in local justice systems,” highlighting “how the criminal justice system often fails to meet the needs of people with disabilities, and it offers opportunities to make the justice system more fair and more accessible.” One of the reports, Expecting Difference: Reorienting Disability Strategy for Jail Decarceration, urges thinking beyond what it calls the “‘ADA compliance’ mindset.” Overconcentration on the ADA may “lead to a narrow focus on the accessibility of physical infrastructure rather than programmatic and digital accessibility,” the report says, or “create inflexibility in problem-solving for disability access that does not involve the physical environment, such as for chronic illness or cognitive disability.” But the ADA’s 35th anniversary prompts consideration of using this law to the extent that it can help address specific problems in local facilities.

Association News

New Issue of the Public Defense Backup Center REPORT Available

The January-April 2025 issue of NYSDA’s newsletter, the Public Defense Backup Center REPORT, is available on the NYSDA website. NYSDA members will receive their hard copy of the issue when printing and mailing are completed. If you have questions, please contact the Backup Center at info@nysda.org or 518-465-3524.

Discovery & Forensic Support Unit Summarizes Steps for Expert Funding

NYSDA’s Discovery & Forensic Support Unit has created a summary guide for attorneys seeking funding for experts, investigators, and auxiliary services. One version is a text-only informational one-pager, suitable for carrying with you and the second version organizes the steps in a visually appealing way, suitable for easier reading and display.

Upcoming Training; Additional Fall Programs Coming Soon

September 17, 2025, 2:00 – 4:00 pm: Deciphering Data from the Lab: Introduction to Reports in DNA & Toxicology

This free Zoom webinar will be presented by Dr. Nidhi Sheth, Senior DNA Analyst, Criminal Defense Practice, The Legal Aid Society and Ashley Hart, NYSDA Staff Attorney, Discovery & Forensic Support Unit. For more information and to register, click here.

September 23, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm: Administering Justice: Utilizing New York's

Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct in Defense Practice

This free Zoom webinar will be presented by Peter Santina, Managing Attorney, Prosecutorial Accountability Project, Civil Rights Corps, and Nicole Smith Futrell, Professor of Law & Faculty Director, Human & Civil Rights Program, CUNY School of Law. For more information and to register, click here.

October 2, 2025, 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm and October 3, 2025, 8:00 am –3:30 pm

Albany, NY

NYSDA’s Fall Forensic Conference: Evidence Unlocked: Challenging DNA, Use of Experts, Digital Evidence, and More. For more information and to register, click here. This in-person only, two-day program will explore key strategies for navigating DNA and digital evidence, giving attendees practical skills and tools to apply to forensic litigation. This event will also include space for connection, conversation, and celebration.

NYSDA Staff Updates

NYSDA was glad to welcome Moe Whitcomb as an Executive Assistant in July. Most recently, Moe was the Assistant to the Executive Offices at the New York State Bar Association. They are passionate about prisoner rights, advocacy, and trauma-informed care for people who are impacted by the criminal legal system. Previously, they were a PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) counselor and caseworker working with survivors of sexual violence in NYS prisons. They have also held positions at Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, The Legal Project, Osborne Association, and a local family law firm.