Judge Joseph Bellacosa: A Tough-on-Crime Judge Who Argued for the Victims of Law Enforcement

By Michael J. Caggianelli

Michael J. Caggianelli is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School. This is the second time he's been published by the Center. See his paper this past spring on Justice Robert Jackson.

Before attending law school, he earned a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University at Albany, SUNY. He also worked as a student research assistant at the Office of the New York State Attorney General, aiding staff members at the Robert Abrams Law Library in downtown Albany.

During law school, Michael served as an Article Editor for Volume 18 of the Government Law Review. He also interned at the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office, including as a student in the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid (DVPH) Clinic. Following these experiences, Michael interned at the New York State Education Department’s Office of Professional Discipline and collaborated with attorneys from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence.

Upon his admission to the bar, Michael will begin his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney, returning to the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office.

Throughout its history as the state of New York’s highest judicial body, the Court of Appeals has been tasked with addressing appellate issues in cases of all areas of law. However, no type of proceeding is more essential to the field of constitutional law than that of a criminal appeal. Indeed, the court’s rulings on procedural issues and matters of due process determine whether government actors protected and abided by a defendant’s constitutional rights throughout the criminal justice process.

Upon his appointment to the Court of Appeals in 1987, Judge Joseph Bellacosa swiftly asserted himself as an independent voice on the state’s highest court. In criminal cases, Bellacosa often aligned staunchly with the interests of the police and prosecutors. Due to his outspoken nature, he sometimes found himself dissenting alone in favor of law enforcement.

Despite this tendency, Bellacosa sometimes confronted cases where the state’s violations of due process were too excessive or a trial court’s error fell well beyond that of a “harmless error,” thereby necessitating the reversal of a conviction. He also displayed a sensitivity to the plight of crime victims and sought to promote their rights when possible.

This paper seeks to examine Judge Bellacosa’s efforts to protect the rights of others involved in the criminal justice process, including those of the accused and victims of crime, to determine the scope and limits of Bellacosa’s attitudes towards law enforcement.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Dissenting v. New York's Special Duty Rule

Bellacosa in Kircher Illuminated the Inflexibility; Wilson in Howell Sparks Hope for Reform

By Priscilla C. Capuano

Priscilla Capuano is a 2024 graduate of Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, Priscilla earned her bachelor’s degree from Siena College, where she majored in Philosophy and minored in Creative Arts.

Priscilla interned at the Albany County District Attorney’s Office in the summer of 2022. She continued her work there by completing a field placement over the fall of 2022, and volunteering in the spring of 2023. During the summer of 2023, Priscilla worked as a Summer Associate for Goldman Sachs. In the fall of 2023, she completed a field placement in the chambers of the Honorable Mae D’Agostino.

Priscilla was on Albany Law School’s Criminal Appellate Travel Team where she competed in the 2023 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition. She also competed in the 2023 Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition, where she competed as a finalist, and won the third best oral advocate award. She and her partner won the 2023 McGovern Senior Prize Trials. As the Managing Editor for Production, Research, and Writing, on the Journal of Science and Technology, Priscilla was involved in organizing and running the Journal Write-on Competition in the summer of 2023. She also served as Executive Editor for the Center of Judicial Process from the fall of 2023 to the spring of 2024. She is

starting her legal career as a law clerk in Westchester County.

For decades, the “special duty rule” has been a source of longstanding confusion and controversy in the New York State Courts. Generally, a municipality will not be held civilly liable for injuries resulting from the police’s failure to provide general protection to its citizens, unless the plaintiff can establish the existence of a “special duty.”

The New York State Court of Appeals’ decisions reveal that the special duty exception is narrowly applied to municipal liability cases. The court’s consistently narrow application is apparent even in cases involving gruesome violence against victims and instances of horrific police work. 

Judge Joseph Bellacosa’s 1989 dissent in Kircher v. Jamestown and Judge Rowan Wilson’s 2022 dissent in Howell v. City of New York both showcase the Judges’ disbelief, disapproval, and disappointment in the majority’s decisions narrowly applying the special duty rule in cases with particularly egregious circumstances. 

Moreover, they assert that these cases are more than mere “sympathetic circumstances” decided under a “catechetical” interpretation of the special duty rule, but an opportunity to “adjust the common-law doctrines of negligence and special duty as fairness and justice require.” The question remains whether Judge Wilson’s Court will seize the opportunity to make appropriate adjustments or adhere to the narrow application of the special duty rule as “settled law.”

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.