3rd Quarter 2026 Ethics Decisions

Brady/Giglio/Rosario & Other Discovery Issues

1st Dept

Brady claim rejected

• People v Sanchez, 2026 NY Slip Op 05493 (1st Dept 9/29/26) – People’s untimely disclosure of victim’s mother’s statement to the investigating detective that she had had a romantic relationship with defendant “was not a Brady violation because the omission was not material,” and defendant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to conduct an adequate investigation.

Brady violation requires new murder trial

• People v White, 2026 NY Slip Op 04475 (1st Dept 7/16/26) – App. Div. affirmed vacatur of 2017 murder conviction because the People had not disclosed the lead detective’s CCRB history or that 3 lawsuits had been filed against him in federal court. Jury’s assessment of the detective’s testimony was crucial to their resolution of whether the shooting was premediated and intentional or accidental. Civil lawsuits alleged misconduct by the detective like that complained of in this case: no Miranda warnings and confession was coerced. Under People v Smith, 27 NY3d 652 (2016), fact that 2 of the lawsuits had been discontinued by stipulation would not have barred cross-examination about them.

2d Dept

Discovery lapses properly resulted in dismissal

• People v Radhakrishnan, 2026 NY Slip Op 05417 (2d Dept 9/23/26) – County Court dismissed the indictment because the People did not turn over calibration and maintenance records for a breathalyzer machine used in connection with defendant’s arrest until 9 months after initial COC and SOR were filed. App. Div. agreed that the People had not demonstrated that the September 2024 COC was filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence. Moreover, People failed to: address defendant’s claim of prejudice; explain why the supplemental discovery materials were not previously disclosed, and “argue lack of prejudice to the defendant or the applicability or inapplicability of any of the other factors” set forth in CPL 245.50(5)(a) as amended and made applicable to all pending matters on August 7, 2025 [see L 2025, ch 56, part LL].

4th Dept

People’s COC/SOR was illusory – case remitted for 30.30 calculation by trial court

• People v Stephens, 2026 NY Slip Op 04652 (4th Dept 7/24/2026) – When People filed their COC, they failed to disclose written statements that multiple witnesses made to the police shortly after the crimes were committed, a 911 recording, and defendant’s booking video — items all subject to automatic disclosure under CPL 245.20 (1). The witness statements were disclosed more than five months after the COC was filed; the 911 recording was disclosed one year after the COC was filed; and the booking video had yet to be disclosed when defendant filed his speedy trial motion, even though it was in the People’s possession and control all along. Court agrees that COC/SOR was illusory; decision reserved and matter remitted to County Court to determine whether the People were ready within the requisite time period.

 

Grand Jury

4th Dept

Defendant in prison garb and restraints when testifying before the grand jury

• People v Forshey, 2026 NY Slip Op 04599 (4th Dept 7/24/2026) – Court rejected the argument that it should dismiss the indictment because defendant was forced to testify before the grand jury in prison attire, shackles, and handcuffs. Even assuming that such a claim survives a valid waiver of appeal, the issue was not preserved for review inasmuch as defendant “neither objected nor requested curative instructions.”

Prosecutorial misconduct did not render Grand Jury proceeding defective

• People v Stencel, 2026 NY Slip Op 04574 (4th Dept 7/24/2026) – Court erred in granting defendant’s renewed motion on the ground that the grand jury proceedings were rendered defective due to prosecutorial misconduct. After the indictment was filed but before trial, the court concluded that the cannabinoid evidence was to be precluded at trial because it was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. That does not, however, imply that the challenged evidence was inherently incompetent or inadmissible under any circumstances. At the time the People presented the cannabinoid evidence to the grand jury, there was no discretionary ruling about its admissibility that would caution the People against relying on it to secure the indictment.

Voir Dire & Juror Issues

2d Dept

New trial ordered because of Batson error

• People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 04440 (2d Dept 7/15/26) – Defendant challenged the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to strike three Hispanic prospective jurors. After the prosecutor offered facially neutral reasons, the trial court did not give defendant the opportunity to argue the reasons were pretextual before it denied the challenge. County Court’s failure to conduct that third Batson step was reversible error [see People v Wright, 42 NY3d 708 (2014)].

 

Direct

1st Dept

People did not suborn perjury at Huntley hearing

• People v Dilione, 2026 NY Slip Op 05496 (1st Dept 9/29/26) – Detective’s testimony that his main purpose in speaking with defendant was to obtain information which would enable the police to find the victim alive was supported by credible evidence that, up until the body was found, law enforcement were conducting a missing persons investigation. “Even if the police believed that the victim might have been murdered and dismembered, it remained objectively reasonable…at that early stage of the investigation for the detectives to act on the possibility that the victim might still be alive. The bloody clothing and other items found in garbage bags heightened the urgency to find the victim as quickly as possible and provided justification for the police to believe that there was an emergency, even if they did not know its exact nature….”

2d Dept

Sex toys should not have been part of the People’s case

• People v Rovelo, 2026 NY Slip Op 04326 (2d Dept 7/8/26) – Sex toys recovered from defendant’s bedroom were improperly admitted into evidence because the People failed to lay a proper foundation establishing that the toys were “identical to that involved in the crime” — but the error was harmless.

 

 

4th Dept

Molineux evidence properly admitted

• People v Bordies, 2026 NY Slip Op 04640 (4th Dept 7/24/2026) – Court did not err in admitting evidence of prior violence between feuding groups who reside in the vicinity of where the shooting occurred, as well as evidence that ▲ and his codefendant were affiliated with one of those groups. “Evidence regarding gang activity can be admitted to provide necessary background, or when it is ‘inextricably interwoven’ with the charged crime[ ], or to explain the relationships of the individuals involved”.

Summation

4th Dept

Prosecutor’s comments on summation were not cause for reversal

• People v Bordies, 2026 NY Slip Op 04640 (4th Dept 7/24/2026) – Defendant not denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct, including the prosecutor’s references to the musical West Side Story in her opening statement and to the quality of the police investigation in her summation. The challenged comments were not “so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” and the court “alleviated any prejudice arising from the prosecutor’s comments and summation by instructing the jury that summation comments are not evidence.

Miscellaneous

2nd Circuit

1st Amendment Challenge to NYS Grievance Records
C.R. Corps v LaSalle, 184 F4th 104 (2d Cir 7/29/26)
C.R. Corps is a group of law professors who filed a 42 USC § 1983 lawsuit in order to obtain records pertaining to grievances filed against 28 former and current ADAs in the Second Department. SDNY Judge Victor Marrero agreed that Judiciary Law § 90 (10), conferring blanket confidentiality upon attorney disciplinary proceedings unless the disposition is made public, abridged these plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. 741 F Supp. 3d 112 (SDNY 2024).

• Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the declaratory judgment order entered below, finding that “a presumptive First Amendment right of access attaches to both Second Department proceedings, including all documents and records reasonably implicated in understanding those proceedings, and the [Grievance] Committee’s dispositions.” Consequently, “the State may not prohibit [the professor-plaintiffs] access to such proceedings and records pertaining to their complaints [directed at former and current ADAs] without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality.”

• NYC Bar President Sees Potential Sea Change in Attorney Discipline after Appeals Ct Ruling

1st Dept

25-month pre-indictment delay did not require dismissal

• People v Serrano, 2026 NY Slip Op 04559 (1st Dept 7/23/26) – Motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay was untimely since it was made more than 45 days after arraignment. In any event, the delay was not “so egregious” and was largely due to federal court proceedings; defendant was incarcerated for much of the time but in connection with a different matter. See generally People v Tarranovich, 37 NY2d 442 (1975).

AI Use/Cyber

Hon. Gerald Lebovits, AI and the Courts: New Frontiers in Legal Writing and Research for New York Judges and Litigators (nysba.org August 12 2026)

Fake case citations

• Matter of Mendel S. v Faigy S., 2026 NY Slip Op 26118 (Fam Ct, Kings Co 7/31/26) – That 11 of 16 citations in attorney’s opposition papers were AI-generated hallucinations constituted frivolous conduct in violation of Rule 1.1. Court imposed $1,000 fine but did not refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Committee since he promptly took responsibility, expressed remorse, and completed a CLE course on AI ethics.

NY Disciplinary & Other Proceedings/Sanctions

Former head of Queens Defenders sentenced to prison

• The founder and former CEO of Queens Defenders was sentenced on July 28 to 43 months in prison after she and her husband (an ex-convict whom she’d hired) pleaded guilty to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of months for, e.g., their 2024 honeymoon in Bali and penthouse apartment — leaving the nonprofit in ruins.

Attorney suspended for failure to comply with investigation into conviction

• Matter of Como, 2026 NY Slip Op 05247 (3d Dept 9/10/26) – Attorney inadvertently disclosed her criminal conviction to Attorney Grievance Committee by appending her CPL 440 memorandum as factual support to a complaint of professional misconduct against the prosecutor. Despite the ACG generously treating the filing as a “self-report,” the attorney refused to comply with its investigation into the circumstances of her arrest and conviction pending the resolution of her CPL 440 motion. Court suspends attorney indefinitely for failure to comply.

Attorney disbarred following fraud scheme

• Matter of Chen, 2026 NY Slip Op 05141 (3d Dept 8/27/26) – Attorney’s numerous federal convictions, arising out of extensive immigration fraud scheme, did not result in automatic disbarment because the federal statutes are not sufficiently similar to any Penal Law offense. See Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147, 150 (1983). Court nonetheless deemed disbarment appropriate in light of attorney’s participation in serious illegal conduct, her dishonest motives, and her engagement in multiple acts of wrongdoing.

Attorney suspended for sexual relations with vulnerable client

• Matter of Kent, 2026 NY Slip Op 05059 (3d Dept 8/20/26) – Pennsylvania suspended attorney for three years for having a personal and sexual relationship with a client. Unlike PA’s broad rule, NY’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j) prohibits sexual relations with clients (outside domestic relations cases) only if the attorney uses coercion, intimidation, or undue influence. No evidence of coercion here, but sexual relations with any client is “precarious and injudicious,” and this client was particularly vulnerable. Imposed one year suspension nunc pro tunc.

Attorney reinstated after DWI

• Matter of Kenney, 2026 NY Slip Op 05058 (3d Dept 8/20/26) – Court grants reinstatement of attorney disbarred in 2018 after felony DWI conviction. The attorney complied with all the directives attendant to her disbarment; remained gainfully employed; took full responsibility for her underlying misconduct; and demonstrated her commitment to sobriety and helping others who struggled with substance abuse. Conditions applied to reinstatement: no solo practice and must be supervised by senior attorney.

News From Other States

Missouri
Misconduct allegations sideline County Prosecutor

• The Ray County Prosecutor has been suspended from her position pending a final hearing on the investigation conducted by the State’s Attorney General into allegations she created a hostile work environment and engaged in inappropriate relationships with, e.g., a criminal defendant and a defense attorney in cases that she herself prosecuted.

Pennsylvania
Habeas corpus court calls upon U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate conduct of local DA and Unit Chief re concession that 2009 murder conviction should be vacated

• Johnson v Nickelson, Civ. 15-4965 (ED Pa 9/15/26) – Addresses attorney misconduct and conflicts of interest within the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO) during federal habeas corpus proceedings from a 2007 murder conviction. Disqualifies District Attorney Lawrence Krasner and Conviction Integrity Unit Chief Matthew Stiegler from participating in the case due to disabling personal-interest conflicts under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Court formally referred Krasner, Stiegler, and the DAO to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for criminal investigation into potential perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.