2nd honker

News Picks from NYSDA Staff

December 10, 2024

NY Statewide Public Defense Training Calendar
Join/Renew NYSDA Membership

News Picks

DMV Adopts Amended Rules Governing Point System; Relicensing After Revocation

The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) amended its regulations regarding the assessment of points, both the number and the time period to be considered for penalties, the rules regarding suspension for multiple alcohol- and drug-related convictions, and the assessment of safety factor negative units. The amendments were adopted on Nov. 6, 2024, though questions remain about its statement in the adopted regulations that: “The proposed regulations will not be enforceable until the thirtieth day following publication in the State Register of notice to the public that the Commissioner has determined that the Department's systems are prepared to implement the proposed regulatory changes.”

 

As noted in the attached summary, defense attorneys should familiarize themselves with the amendments as they are likely to impact many clients and cases. The amendments have raised several questions, and requests for clarification have been made to the DMV. NYSDA plans to offer training on this topic in the coming weeks.

 

The amendments that were adopted had been revised slightly from the original proposal, which was reported in the Oct. 4, 2023 News Picks from NYSDA Staff.

 

Two New VTL Sections Take Effect

On Nov. 1, 2024, a new provision of VTL 511(3) took effect. Under the new subparagraph v, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle is elevated to first-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle where the individual “has in effect” five or more suspensions or revocations, imposed on at least five separate occasions, pursuant to specified provisions of VTL 510(2)(a), 510(2)(b), 510(2)(d), provisions relating to evading lawful arrest or prosecution while operating a motor vehicle or motorcycle, or 510(3)(i); 510-a(1)(c), (d), or (e) or (3)(c), (d), or (e); 510-b; 510-c(5); or 1193(2). The law also required the DMV commissioner to provide written notice to all persons with four such license suspensions or revocations that a fifth suspension or revocation would subject any person charged under 511(3)(a)(v) to a class E felony with a definite sentence which may not exceed two years. The law, signed last year (L 2023, ch 722), is also known as Angelica’s Law.

 

The second law (L 2024, ch 436), effective Nov. 22, 2024, makes it is a violation of VTL 1212 (reckless driving) to drive a motor vehicle, motorcycle, or other type of vehicle specified in the statute “in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of” any parking lot “or unreasonably endangers users” of any parking lot. The term parking lot is defined as “any area or areas of private property, including a driveway, near or contiguous to and provided in connection with premises and used as a means of access to and egress from a public highway to such premises and having a capacity for the parking of four or more motor vehicles. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any area or areas of private property comprising all or part of property on which is situated a one or two family residence.”

 

Clean Slate Goes into Effect, But Implementation Will Take Years

New York’s Clean Slate Act finally went into effect on Nov. 16, 2024. As we wrote in News Picks when Governor Hochul signed the legislation:

 

“NYSDA applauds the signing of Clean Slate, which will allow New Yorkers to re-enter the workforce and break down barriers that have prevented people from providing for themselves and their families. As defenders, we have witnessed how enmeshed penalties, and collateral consequences have held New Yorkers back from being able to exist as equal, productive, and positive members of society. Clean Slate has been long overdue, and we are grateful to all who supported the legislation.”

 

Supporters of the law, including its co-sponsors state Senator Zellnor Myrie and state Assemblymember Catalina Cruz, celebrated at Brooklyn Public Library’s main branch. Myrie and Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, published an op-ed, “Clean Slate benefits economy, public safety,” in am NY. The Clean Slate coalition website has FAQs about the law on its website, www.cleanslateny.org/faq, and has been hosting events on the Act. 

 

According to the Office of Court Administration’s website, the Act provides them “three years from [Nov. 16, 2024] … to set up the required processes to automatically seal eligible conviction records.” No later than Nov. 16, 2027, a form will be posted on the OCA website that individuals who think their convictions should have been sealed can use to seek review of those convictions. In a subsequent FAQ section, they write:

 

“To determine if someone is eligible for record sealing under Clean Slate, the courts need to gather all of the person's convictions from every court in the state and connect each conviction to information about any time they spent in jail, on probation, parole, or under post-release supervision. This requires building new systems, which are still being developed. The legislature gave [OCA] three years from when the law takes effect … to complete these systems based on the complexity of the information that needs to be considered.”

 

Amended Statutes from 2024-25 SFY Budget That Criminalize Poverty Take Effect

A number of amended statutes, originally referenced in the May 7, 2024 edition of News Picks discussing this year’s State Budget, have now gone into effect. Thematically, these amendments are focused on further penalizing “organized” retail theft.

 

The first set of amendments addresses three sections of Penal Law article 155 - grand larceny in the fourth, second, and first degrees. The key modification is extending the time period and locations for which the aggregate statutory thresholds may be met. Instead of the monetary amount having to be met in a single instance, the “value may be determined by the aggregate value of all such property regardless of whether the goods or merchandise were stolen from the same owner,” so long as the alleged thefts are “pursuant to a common scheme or plan.” (The monetary thresholds themselves have not changed in almost 40 years: $1,000 (155.30), $3,000, (155.35), $50,000 (155.40), and $1 million (155.42)).

 

The amendments create new felony liability for clients who are only charged with minor thefts multiple times. Previously, a client charged with three retail thefts of $350 each could only be charged with PL 155.25 - a class A misdemeanor - three times. But now, since the aggregate amount of the three thefts would be greater than $1,000, they could be charged with PL 155.30, a E felony, if they are alleged to be “pursuant to a common scheme or plan.” What constitutes a “common scheme or plan” will of course have to be litigated.

 

The Legislature also created two new crimes. The first is a new E felony, “assault on a retail worker” (120.19). The statute is incredibly broad - “with the intent to prevent a retail worker from performing an act within the scope of such worker's employment, such person causes physical injury to such retail worker and the person knew or reasonably should have known that such individual was a retail worker.” That language, absent intent or recklessness to cause the physical injury, tracks the language of second-degree assault against certain public professionals contained in PL 120.05(3). An issue that will require litigation is whether a “retail worker” has a scope of employment in the same way that a police officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or other occupation listed in Article 120 has.

 

The second new crime is “fostering the sale of stolen goods,” a class A misdemeanor (165.66). While broadly written to include internet sales, the statute seems to be written to focus on “any physical building, public or private space, or location” where ”retail goods or merchandise which are stolen or unlawfully obtained” are being sold. There is no monetary threshold in the statute. While the sale of stolen goods on the sidewalk was previously often charged as a local administrative code violation, the new law allows prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against the sellers.

 

If you encounter any of these new charges, please reach out to the Backup Center for any litigation assistance. “Organized retail theft” has no consistent legal definition, and this legislation only focuses on those at the bottom of any organized criminal ladder, assuming one actually exists. Unfortunately, these amendments and new statutes are yet another step in New York’s ceaseless criminalization of poverty and substance use.

 

CAL’s November Court of Appeals Update Available

The November 2024 edition of the Center for Appellate Litigation (CAL) publication, Court of Appeals Newsletter, is available here. The newsletter, created at CAL every two months for its own lawyers and generously shared with the defender community, lists significant criminal cases pending in the state’s highest court. The newest edition includes summaries of 6 cases pending decision, 11 pending arguments, and 29 to be scheduled, along with a few new leave grants. The issues about which decisions are pending include aspects of stop and frisk, admission of co-defendants’ statements, Sex Offender Registration Act classifications, the justification defense, defense expert testimony about eyewitness identification, and effective appellate assistance of counsel.

 

Defenders are encouraged to familiarize themselves with pending issues and preserve and present similar issues in their own cases. NYSDA thanks CAL for sharing these updates and other resources like Issues to Develop at Trial; see the webpage For the Legal Community.

 

Recent Family Court Decisions from the Fourth Department

 

Fourth Department Finds Abuse of Discretion in Denying Adjournment Request

In Matter of Betz v Betz (2024 NY Slip Op 05713 [11/15/2024]), the Fourth Department reversed an award of Family Court Act article 6 custody to the father, which was granted after a hearing that was purportedly on default where the court removed the mother from the courtroom for refusing to settle the case. In its decision, the appellate division rejected the idea that the mother defaulted. Furthermore, the court found that the Erie County Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the attorney for the mother’s adjournment request. “We further agree with the mother that the court abused its discretion in denying her counsel's request to adjourn the hearing. It is well settled that ‘[t]he grant or denial of a motion for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court’ [citation omitted]. Here, the record reveals that it was unclear to the parties on the day of the hearing whether a trial was to happen on that date and whether the parties were prepared to proceed with trial.” This case serves as a reminder to defenders of the importance of making adjournment requests on the record to preserve any denial for appeal.

 

TPR Reversed

In Matter of Juliet W. (2024 NY Slip Op 05690 [11/15/2024]), the Fourth Department reversed a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) finding against a parent based on permanent neglect. The court determined that the Cattaraugus County Family Court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment based solely on a 2018 determination of permanent neglect of other children based on the mother’s mental illness and intellectual disability. The appellate division wrote, “The motion was premised solely on the ground that the mother was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue whether she was ‘presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for [the subject] child’ (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]).” “Although collateral estoppel may be an appropriate ground on which to grant summary judgment in a Family Court proceeding under certain circumstances [citation omitted], such circumstances are not present here.” Among other things, the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the mother’s current mental health and intellectual disability, and the 2018 decision did not contain findings of fact or conclusions of law that she was permanently impaired.

 

As with most family court matters, this case is fact-specific and defenders are encouraged to read it in its entirety, along with the cases cited in the decision and CPLR 3212 for a better understanding of the role summary judgments play in family court. Defenders are encouraged to email our Family Court Staff Attorney, Kim Bode, at kbode@nysda.org with any questions about this or any family court matter.

 

Additions to “Section 504” Provide Increased Protections for Parents Entangled in the Family Regulatory System

Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) passed a final rule to increase the federal protection for people with disabilities. It is entitled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. According to the HHS fact sheet, “The rule, which is effective July 8, 2024, updates, clarifies, and strengthens HHS’ implementing regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).”

 

Significant to family defenders representing parents in abuse, neglect, and TPR proceedings, section 84.60, as summarized in the fact sheet, states, “Discriminatory actions are prohibited when making determinations throughout the child welfare process including, but not limited to, custody, parent-child visitation, family preservation and unification services, and the termination of parental rights. Recipients also must not deny a qualified caregiver with a disability the opportunity to participate in child welfare programs or activities, such as parenting skills programs, and in- and out-of-home services.”

 

DNA Contamination Events at NYC OCME Led to Root Cause Analysis Investigation

The Forensic Biology Department of the OCME issued a Root Cause Analysis Report, disclosing the results of its investigation to stakeholders including legal defense groups. As reported in NY Daily News, the report left many questions, only some of which were answered at the most recent meeting of the DNA Subcommittee of the Commission on Forensic Science on November 15th. You can view this meeting on the NYS Public Safety YouTube channel here. NYSDA has joined several New York City defense teams and advocate groups in a letter to the OCME, calling for increased transparency and asking questions about this root cause analysis itself.

 

A root cause analysis found that a total of 16 contamination events occurred between separate cases in which DNA from a high template source (i.e., alleged sexual assault complainant swab) contaminated a DNA sample from a low template source in another case (i.e., an alleged property crime swab or cutting). As a result of these contamination events, a total of 26 samples from 22 cases were ultimately affected, resulting in the removal of 10 DNA profiles from CODIS. None of these DNA profiles resulted in a “convicted offender hit” within CODIS. The investigators attributed the following factors to the contamination events: (1) the criminalists at issue were inconsistent with cleaning their benches and/or non-disposable tools; (2) the criminalists failed to separate high template evidence from low template evidence; and (3) the lab “does not conduct cross-contamination checks for all samples.”

 

During the Commission on Forensic Science DNA Subcommittee meeting, representatives of the OCME lab stated that they were in the process of retraining, implementing more disposable tools, standardizing specific cleaning practices, and reorganizing working spaces to help prevent contamination. While the root cause analysis is complete, the OCME Forensic Biology section’s investigation is ongoing. Since issuing the root cause analysis report, additional contamination events have been uncovered by the OCME’s ongoing quality monitoring. The current total of contamination events impacted 30 samples in 24 cases and the OCME is notifying stakeholders with affected cases.

 

** If you question the validity of your DNA results from the NYC OCME, you should request QC monitoring via this form linked here: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/ocme/downloads/pdf/forms/qc_monitoring_form.pdf **

 

As we reported in our June 4th News Picks From NYSDA Staff, a new bill was introduced in this year’s legislative session, calling for additional oversight, licensure of forensic analysts, and transparency of analysts’ testing results. This latest scandal is one of several facing New York State labs in recent memory and the root cause analysis results serve as a reminder that forensic labs in our state are failing to exercise the care required to prevent errors. This lack of awareness, training, and care may lead to catastrophic consequences for clients. NYSDA will continue to monitor this situation and endeavor to get additional answers to our questions.

 

Shortage of Medical Examiners at Queens OCME Leads to Potential Confrontation Issues

A recent article in Gothamist highlighted critical consequences of consolidating medical examiner services in Brooklyn and Manhattan after the Queens OCME stopped conducting autopsies. There is a national shortage of medical examiners and the Doctors Council is negotiating a new contract with the city, arguing for better pay for its doctors. A staffing shortage may impact investigations and courtroom testimony. “Medical examiners said that as more of their peers leave, substitutes have to testify in the criminal cases they left behind — a practice known as ‘surrogate testimony’ that is under growing scrutiny in the courts.” The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision regarding surrogate testimony in Smith v Arizona, covered in our July 31, 2024 News Picks from NYSDA Staff. There, the Court found a Confrontation Clause violation because the expert opinion testimony was being introduced for the truth of the matter where the testifying expert reached his conclusions about the evidence by relying solely on the out-of-court statements of another non-testifying analyst from the same lab.

 

DVSJA Cases Face Challenges and Resistance

Defenders whose clients are survivors of domestic violence face high-risk high-reward battles in determining whether the charges may stem from the abuse as contemplated by the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) and gaining the benefit of the ameliorative sentencing guidelines of the statute. Even where there may be sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing, it can be challenging to persuade a sentencing judge that a guideline sentence should be granted. This is especially true in CPL 440.47 applications for resentencing, which cases currently make up the bulk of the developing law in this area and will inform prospective PL 60.12 sentencing applications.

 

One recent hearing court decision is People v A.L. (2024 NY Slip Op 24281 [Supreme Ct, New York Co 11/1/2024]). In this case, the court found that the applicant had met the first prong of the statute by establishing she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the underlying crime. However, denying the application, the court determined that while the evidence of the applicant’s history of abuse presented contributing factors to the underlying murder, they did not demonstrate a “significant contributing factor.” The court further found that under the circumstances of the case, lifetime parole was not an unduly harsh sentence.

 

While there are a number of conclusions in A.L. that give rise to challenge, two issues of import that deserve scrutiny in this decision relate to the court’s consideration of the applicant’s failure to testify and an interpretation of “significant contributing factor” that requires proof of “causation.” As to the former, while the judge did not fault A.L. for not testifying at the hearing, he wrote that he was “required to consider the lack of any testimony by the Defendant as a lack of evidence which was relevant to its determination.” As to the latter, the court referenced and adopted reasoning from a 2023 decision from another county court (People v B.N., 79 Misc 3d 740 [Supreme Ct, Cayuga Co 2023]) in which a hearing court ruled that the only valid interpretation of the statutory language related to “significant contributing factor” must amount to causation. While nuanced, a significant contributing factor and a causal fact are not necessarily equivalent and such interchangeability must be examined closely as the foundational body of law for the DVSJA is developed.

 

People v A.L. presented a complicated set of circumstances involving the disturbing and violent killing of a child. The applicant was released on parole after serving 26 years of a 15-to-life sentence for murder in the second degree, which, practically speaking, meant that a resentencing under the DVJSA guidelines would serve only to terminate her parole. The court found that under the circumstances of the case, lifetime parole was not unduly harsh and that in any event, should the applicant prove amenable to supervision and able to show a successful reentry, the Division of Parole had the discretionary power to terminate her supervision after three years.

 

A final observation regarding the decision in A.L. relates to disconcerting dicta in which the judge, describing the scope of the DVSJA, noted that motions invoking it “are now routinely made in cases having nothing to do with a crime related to an abuser.” While, in denying the motion before him, he did say that A.L.’s case “bears a closer relationship to the statute's purpose than most claims now being routinely filed under the DVSJA,” such dictum, seemingly berating “routine applications,” suggests an unsettling predisposition of resistance defenders must be prepared to overcome in persuading courts to consider DVSJA applications through a lens unclouded by skepticism.

 

Recent DVSJA Appellate Decisions

The Third Department affirmed denials of resentencing relief in three cases. See People v Niquasia MM. (230 AD3d 1473 [9/26/2024]), in which the hearing court’s determination that the client’s submission that her lifetime history of abuse “negatively affected her ‘social abilities and interactions with others’” was not supported by evidence that such abuse was occurring “at the time of” or amounted to a “significant contributing factor” in the underlying crime; People v Rebecca XX. (230 AD3d 1491 [9/26/2024]), in which the Appellate Division affirmed the hearing court’s determination of insufficient evidence of substantial abuse as a significant contributing factor to the crime; and People v Boyd P. (2024 NY Slip Op 05608 [11/13/2024]), in which the Appellate Division affirmed denial of relief based on a failure to establish a nexus between prior abuse and the underlying conduct. In all of these decisions, the courts emphasized that the evidence of the abuse was not supported by evidence other than the applicants’ testimony. The Niquasia MM. court stated, “Notably absent from the record is any psychological or other expert evaluation opining that the defendant’s abusive past was a significant contributing factor”; in Rebecca XX., the court affirmed the County Court’s determination that “other than the defendant’s self-reporting" there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate substantial abuse; and in Boyd P., the court observed the applicant presented “no evidence of a medical, psychiatric or psychological nature indicating that his criminal actions were somehow related to ongoing abuse by his stepfather (who had died at least several years prior to the crime) or mother.”

 

Shifting to applications for DVJSA sentencing in current cases, the Second Department recently held that “a defendant may waive a hearing to determine his or her eligibility for a reduced sentence under the DVSJA as a condition of a negotiated plea agreement.” People v Hudson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04571 (9/25/2024). In Hudson, the defense requested a 60.12 hearing, submitting evidence of domestic violence, including a narrative of the underlying incident in which her abuser was present triggering her perception of threat and resulting in her criminal conduct. Ultimately a plea deal was worked out that included a waiver of a 60.12 hearing in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence that would impose a minimum regular determinate sentence that equated to what would have been the maximum sentence under the DVJSA guidelines. Prior to the final disposition of the case, the question of whether a hearing could be waived was raised and the trial court ultimately determined that, based on full and fair consideration of the client’s understanding of the consequences of the plea and waiver, a waiver could be accepted in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence. On appeal, the panel rejected a prosecution claim that the issue was unpreserved but found nothing in the plain language of the DVSJA statute or its purpose and policy goals that convinced the court that the rights thereunder are nonwaivable.

 

In the wake of Hudson, attorneys must be diligent in pursuing DVSJA guideline sentences and be very careful when counseling clients regarding plea offers that include a waiver of the application of the statute even where they seem to fit within the law. Waivers will skew the data used to assess the effectiveness of the law and potentially weaken the goals of the statute by allowing cases to be settled using an outdated lens of the impact of domestic violence on victims who find themselves facing criminal prosecution.

 

Given the complexity and difficulty of pursuing DVSJA claims, attorneys are encouraged to review the materials available on NYSDA’s DVSJA webpage. For additional information and consultation, contact Senior Staff Attorney Stephanie Batcheller at SJBatcheller@nysda.org or (518) 465-3524 x 41.

 

Vital City: More Data Needed to Guide Actions on Youth Crime

The facts about youth crime in New York City “are more complicated than often presented,” says the subheading on an article posted by Vital City on November 7th. Noting recent stories asserting that juvenile violence is rising in the City and claims that Raise the Age reform is the cause, the article urges caution. “Snapshots obscure overall trends,” says the heading on a section of the article discussing fluctuations and behaviors that are obscured in year-over-year comparisons. And “compared to what,” it asks as to rising numbers of youth arrests, pointing out that “more criminal arrests are happening of people at all ages, with juveniles making up a shrinking share of those totals.” Then the article reminds readers that “arrest data has significant limits,” including that “arrest patterns are influenced by policing practices” and that “arrests can be affected by policy changes, such as the ratcheting up or dialing back of stop-and-frisk policies or decriminalization of certain offenses.” The final sentence is: “[w]ithout better data, we risk disproportionately focusing on youth crime and misallocating limited public safety resources on a demographic that accounts for about 9% of major crime arrests.”

 

Concerns about the possible rollback of Raise the Age and other reforms remain. And aside from legislative advocacy, what is happening to youth in the system has other impacts. See, for example, media coverage of issues in detention facilities, including The City’s October 24th article on a New York City Department of Investigation report about many problems in the two facilities there. Upstate, the Times Union carried a story about a State Comptroller’s audit revealing locally-operated juvenile detention facilities’ frequent failures “to conduct timely assessments of many of the adolescent offenders in their custody.” This could result “in those youth not receiving mandatory individualized ‘de-escalation plans’ and other health assessments ….” The Office of Children and Family Services plans to review the audit, the article says.

 

Defenders who practice in a Youth Part need to know about conditions in detention facilities, which can affect clients’ ability to assist in their defense, achieve goals helpful for plea negotiation and sentence mitigation, etc. See, for example, Standard 9.2.m of the Office of Indigent Legal Services’ Assigned Counsel Program Standards. One resource that defenders are encouraged to use is “A Defense Attorney’s Guide: Representing Adolescents,” released in September 2024 by Alan Rosenthal. NYSDA plans to offer training on the Guide in 2025.

 

Trying to Address Mental Health Issues Among Rural Youth

Lawyers with young clients in rural communities (and everyone in those communities who are concerned about youth) may struggle to find help for young people facing mental health issues. Some resources that may be of interest include a recorded webinar from Mental Health America on supporting rural youth mental health. More general resources include the Rural Mental Health webpage of the Rural Health Information Hub (RHIhub) and a Psychology Today post about rural Telehealth.

 

Attack on Bail Reform Rebutted

Before the November election, criticism of the bail reform legislation that has been in existence for four years (and amended three times) surfaced again. State Senator Tom O’Mara’s October 23rd op-ed at OleanTimesHerald.com, reprised on November 4th at Chronicle-Express.com (Penn Yan), complained that current bail laws allowed a man charged with felonies relating to a large “drug bust” to be “’released with ticket,’” which according to O’Mara endangered New Yorkers. Attorney Fern Adelstein, a long-time NYSDA member, wrote a thoughtful rebuttal, published on November 14th. Points in her letter included that the conditions of release imposed in the case were “actively more stringent than posting cash bail,” that there was no “spike in crime” associated with the bail reform—reform meant to execute the constitutional mandate “that we are ‘not guilty’ until determined otherwise”—and that “bail reform has very well served every aspect of the legal system.” NYSDA thanks Adelstein for challenging erroneous claims about bail reform and hopes others will take similar steps.


Association News


NYSDA is Hiring!

 

The New York State Defenders Association (NYSDA) is seeking a Legal Director to lead and coordinate the Public Defense Backup Center’s legal program, which provides resources and direct defender support to public defense attorneys statewide. The Backup Center’s legal program is currently staffed with staff attorneys, Discovery and Forensic Support Unit attorneys, a training coordinator, and a legal assistant, and is anticipated to grow in the coming year. As a member of the leadership team, the Legal Director will collaborate with NYSDA’s other programs to ensure cohesive services that align with the organization’s mission and vision for client-centered high-quality representation throughout the state. For more information, click here for full job posting and instructions on how to apply. 

 

NYSDA’s Training Schedule

Since our last newsletter, NYSDA conducted an all-day Investigations Training in NYC at the Legal Aid Society’s new Training and Advocacy Center and launched webinars on Discovery from the Defense: Ethics and Key Questions, Mitigating Fines & Fees in Criminal Cases, and The A to Z of Article 6 Custody Relocation. We hope you join us for our upcoming trainings. Please note, our NYSDA training calendar gets updated periodically as programming gets added.   

 

Free Family Defense Webinars

 

  • Friday, January 24, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Venue and Jurisdictional Issues in Family Court Custody Cases. For more information and to register, click here.
  • Tuesday, February 11, 2025, Noon – 2:00 pm, Providing Effective Pre-Petition Representation in an Under-Resourced Family Defense Environment. For more information and to register, click here.
  • Thursday, March 6, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Family Court Case Law Update. For more information and to register, click here.
  • Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Should My Client Testify? Negative Inferences & Other Considerations in Abuse & Neglect Cases. For more information and to register, click here.

 

SAVE THE DATE: NYSDA’s 58th Annual Meeting & Conference will be held at the Saratoga City Center and Saratoga Hilton located in Saratoga Springs from July 27 to 29, 2025. The conference will again feature training for criminal and family defenders and defense team members and various networking opportunities. Hotel reservation information and conference registration will be forthcoming. 

Copyright © 2012-2024 New York State Defenders Association

New York State Defenders Association
194 Washington Avenue, Suite 500, Albany, NY 12210
518.465.3524
STAY CONNECTED
Facebook  Twitter