New York's Court of Appeals, heard one decision at a time.
Each episode takes one New York State Court of Appeals ruling, such as People v Billups or People v Henderson, and reads out the court's reasoning with the case citations left in. A standard welcome opens it, and the disposition and the list of concurring and dissenting judges close it.
PRESS PLAY
NYPTI Practice Tips puts New York State Court of Appeals decisions into audio, one case at a time. The format stays the same from episode to episode. A standard welcome names the feature, 'Decisions on the Go,' says AI helps people listen to the decisions, and sends the listener to NYPTI's website for the full written decision. Then come the caption, the decision date and the judge who wrote the opinion, followed by the court's reasoning. That reasoning is read in the opinion's own formal language, with precedents cited by name and statutes cited by section. The recent episodes are all criminal appeals captioned People v., so the feed stays focused on how the court reviews convictions and sentences. Sentencing is one clear thread. People v Billups asks whether a sentence for weapon possession could run consecutively to felony murder and robbery terms, and the analysis turns on when one act of possession ends and another begins. People v Sabb, decided the same day, deals with consecutive sentences after a guilty plea and explains the prosecution's burden to overcome both prongs of Penal Law 70.25. Hearing the two together shows how much depends on the record. Billups is affirmed, but in Sabb the court holds that the trial court erred, because neither the indictment count nor the defendant's plea admissions supplied the facts needed for consecutive sentences. Evidence and procedure make up another thread. People v Henderson lays out a two-step test for admitting a defendant's earlier drug possession. First, the court asks whether the evidence bears on an issue other than propensity, which it reviews as a question of law. Second, it asks whether the evidence's value outweighs its prejudice, which it reviews for abuse of discretion. That case ends with a new trial ordered, over a dissent. People v. Palacios involves a suppression motion, a detective's probable cause I-card and the fellow officer rule, and the case is sent back to Supreme Court, Queens County. People v Bender asks whether the evidence supported depraved indifference for first-degree reckless endangerment, and it covers the notice a defendant must serve before offering psychiatric evidence. People v Lewis has the most striking facts: a defendant insisted he had fired his lawyer, left the courtroom and was tried in his absence, while the trial court warned him he was making a huge mistake. Chief Judge Wilson dissents there, and the closing vote line also records a concurrence. That vote line is worth listening for, because it shows which rulings split the court. Sabb and Henderson both have dissents, while Billups and Bender close with none noted. For a first listen, Lewis is the easiest way in, and the sentencing pair suits a listener ready for denser legal reasoning.
Made for: Suits a listener who works in or studies New York criminal law and wants to hear the Court of Appeals' reasoning on suppression, sentencing and evidence, with the full written decision available afterward on NYPTI's website.
What sets it apart: There are no hosts reacting to the rulings. Each episode carries the court's own reasoning for one New York State Court of Appeals decision, with the citations and the final vote included.
Providing Continuing Legal Education and Mutual Assistance To New York State Prosecutors
A defendant leaves the courtroom; you stay to hear what that does to his right to counsel.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A careful Molyneux ruling turns on relevance, prejudice, harmless error, and proof that was not overwhelming.
People v. LaShawn Henderson treats a familiar evidence problem with unusual care: when can an earlier drug-possession incident show what a defendant knew later?
People v. Lewis links a defendant's courtroom absence with a separate sentencing correction.
People v. Lewis treats a defendant's absence from trial as more than a scheduling problem. The episode tracks how the court tried to make the stakes plain: no new lawyer would be appointed, trial could go forward without him, and he could either keep counsel or represent…
Trial craft, verdict stories, and lawyer reps.
Queensland estate planning, made concrete.
The New York State Court of Appeals reverses a conviction because the prosecution failed to present evidence that the arresting officer relied on fellow officer information for probable cause, requiring suppression of the defendant's statement.
People v.
The New York State Court of Appeals affirms that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the prosecution failed to show the two offenses were separate and distinct acts.
People v.
The New York Court of Appeals affirms consecutive sentences for a defendant convicted of weapon possession, felony murder, and robbery, holding that the intent to rob was formed after acquiring the weapon.
NYPTI Practice Tips analyzes People v.
NYPTI Practice Tips examines Matter of M.S.
The New York Court of Appeals remits a case to the Appellate Division for applying the wrong legal standard on consent voluntariness, finding any error harmless except for one weapon possession count.
The New York Court of Appeals affirms a trial court's denial of a mistrial request after a juror alleged racial bias among other jurors in a double shooting case.
The New York Court of Appeals holds that a defendant has standing to challenge the firearm licensing scheme facially despite not applying for a license, but his claim fails because the proper cause requirement is severable.
The New York Court of Appeals holds that a defendant forfeited the right to a 12-person jury when a juror was discharged during trial, and the trial court properly proceeded with 11 jurors.
The New York Court of Appeals upholds Jason Wright's assault conviction but remits for resentencing due to denial of his right to controvert predicate felony allegations.