New Pro-Defendant Decisions Signal Sea Change at New York’s Top Court

It’s hard to imagine the DiFiore court issuing last week’s opinion, written by Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and supported by Halligan, ruling that police had violated a defendant’s rights by entering his apartment to arrest him without a warrant. In a 2021 case, the DiFiore court explicitly approved similar entries in certain circumstances, over a dissent from Wilson. Last week’s ruling shows a shift from that stance, and it was just one of five recent rulings in which Halligan cast a key vote in favor of defendants.

“As we hoped, this court is showing a demarcation from past decisions,” said state Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who chairs the judiciary committee. Hoylman-Sigal, along with other senators and advocates, touted the rulings as validation of their historic fight last winter, when the state Senate rejected chief judge nominee Hector LaSalle, the first time it had ever voted down a governor’s nominee to lead the Court of Appeals.

Even one of LaSalle’s most ardent backers praised Halligan’s votes for defendants’ rights.

“Judge Halligan has been a great asset,” said Senator Luis Sepúlveda, one of the few legislators to support LaSalle. “From my philosophy, we made the right choice with her.”

Last year, after DiFiore resigned amid a scandal, Governor Kathy Hochul nominated LaSalle, a judge on a state appeals court, to replace her. Progressive Democrats and labor unions were outraged. They said LaSalle’s judicial record was too conservative, citing rulings that they argued shielded “crisis pregnancy centers,” disadvantaged labor unions, and barred a criminal defendant from appealing his conviction. They rejected his nomination in February, and two months later, Wilson was elevated to chief judge from his existing seat on the court. Halligan filled Wilson’s spot as associate judge.

Though it’s still early, the recent pro-defendant rulings show the effect that political fight had, said Noah Rosenblum, a professor at the New York University School of Law who was a prominent opponent of LaSalle’s nomination.

“The evidence does not show that there is a durable liberal majority,” he said. “But as a result of not having LaSalle be the seventh vote on that court, New Yorkers have more rights.”

She broke the tie in another criminal case last week, this time writing an opinion ordering a new trial for a defendant who had been convicted of illegal gun possession. By allowing prosecutors to use prior gun-related incidents, including a decade-earlier conviction for a similar crime, as evidence, the lower court had prejudiced the jury against the defendant, Halligan argued. New York law generally prohibits prosecutors from using previous unconnected crimes as evidence against defendants.

“It’s night and day from the horrible DiFiore court,” said state Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris. “I have great confidence in the chief judge and a number of the judges who are taking this approach.”

In another 4–3 ruling, Halligan joined an opinion stating that requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender for a non-sexual crime — unlawful imprisonment of a minor — violated his constitutional rights. Though his crime didn’t involve any sexual contact, state law defined it as a sex crime. In an opinion by Judge Jenny Rivera, the court removed the sex offender designation.

Rivera argued in favor of overturning a 2009 Court of Appeals case that had allowed sex offender designations in similar situations. While Wilson supported Rivera’s opinion, Halligan and Judge Shirley Troutman, who is also more moderate, didn’t join that part of it, meaning that the 2009 case stands for now.

The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York declined to comment for this story.