The Ups and Downs of New York's Right to Counsel: The Cooke, Lippman, and DiFiore Courts

By Chloe Petry

Chloe Petry is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School. Prior to attending Albany Law School, she earned a bachelor’s degree from SUNY Fredonia, studying Biology and Botany. In law school, Chloe was the Managing Editor for Production, Research, and Writing for the Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 35. She was also the President of the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.

New York’s state constitutional right to counsel is far more robust and expansive than its federal counterpart due to the New York Court of Appeals’ (“the Court”) extensive review of the right, which furthered constitutional protections for the accused. However, as this paper will discuss, the Court’s review has not always been as progressive, nor has it continued to build on existing precedent.

It appears the Court has taken steps backwards and weakened the right. The New York Constitution holds that any “suspect in a criminal matter . . . who requests representation may not be questioned further in the absence of an attorney.” Also, “[b]y extension, a suspect who has invoked the right cannot voluntarily waive the right to counsel without an attorney present.”  This right is described as “indelible:” s defined as “marks that cannot easily be removed.” 

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Influence of Judicial Deference on the New York Court of Appeals

By Patricia T. Whelan

Patricia T. Whelan is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, she earned her bachelor’s degree from Penn State.

At Albany Law, Patricia is an Associate Editor of the Albany Law Review, a Board Member of the Elder and Disability Law Pro Bono Society, and the 3L Representative of the Student Bar Association. As a second-year student, she was the Chief Justice of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, where she received the Outstanding Law School Chapter Justice Award.

Patricia has interned for the Third Judicial District, Federal Public Defender’s Office, and served as the Law Student Liaison for the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law. She also enjoys competing in various Moot Court Competitions and was a finalist in the 2021 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition.

In addition to all of that, Patricia is the Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process for the 2022-23 academic year, and she is currently working as a law clerk at Pierro, Connor & Strauss.

The legal decision-making process is deeply rooted in the judicial branch of the United States Government.  It is an art that is foundational to our justice system.  The process by which judges interpret and apply the law to arrive at legal conclusions is often perplexing and intriguing.  As such, the process of how judges make decisions is frequently discussed and studied amongst many forums.  Numerous philosophies and principles have been constructed and developed regarding the judicial decision-making process.  One significant aspect of the judicial decision-making process is the legal power of judicial review which grants courts the broad power to determine the constitutionality of government actions. 

Within the principle of judicial review, lies the philosophy of deference.  Judicial deference is often used by judges in their decision-making process.  It stands for the idea that courts may yield or defer its judgment to that of another legitimate branch of authority.  Under this standard of review, judges recognize that they may be required to uphold a certain interpretation of law, even if they do not believe that it is correct, given that the Constitution does not prohibit the legislature’s determination and there is a reasonable basis for it. 

The purpose of this paper is to consider the decisions of three different New York Court of Appeals judges who all seemingly employ a deferential attitude in reaching a legal conclusion.  First, this paper considers the majority opinion of Judge Charles D. Breitel in Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. Next, it looks at People v. Davis and the majority opinion written by Judge Lawrence H. Cooke.  Lastly, it discusses Judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr.’s majority opinion in Shipley v. City of New York.  This paper concludes by drawing generalizations about the judges’ and their opinions based on the deferential standard of judicial review. 

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke’s Legacy

His Lasting Impact on the New York Court of Appeals

By Tyler J. Wilson

Tyler Wilson is a 2021 graduate of Albany Law School. During law school, he served as Managing Editor of Business and Production for the Albany Government Law Review.

Prior to attending law school, he received a Bachelor’s degree from SUNY Buffalo in legal studies and was a member of the Men’s Baseball Team. Tyler is currently an associate (pending admission) in Buffalo for the law firm, Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP.

The New York Court of Appeals has a rich and storied history. One reason for this is the many excellent judges who have sat on the bench. One judge who has a significant role in shaping the court was Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke. He did so by authoring opinions on important issues which promoted justice and were based on solid legal reasoning.

Chief Judge Cooke would go on to have a lasting impact on the court. His small-town roots and family values shaped his judicial philosophy. Chief Judge Cooke truly believed in fairness and justice for all, and he showed this in his majority opinions and dissents.

Cooke was also a vigorous advocate for independent New York State Constitution Law, and he was a leader in helping to improve the legal profession in the state of New York. It is important to look back on Chief Judge Cooke’s legacy and the history of the Court to understand how it got to where it is today and where it may be headed.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Cooke: The Man and His Impact on the Law

By Anthony Sokolowski

Anthony Sokolowski, a third year student at Albany Law School, is the Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process. He graduated from Utica College in 2016 with a bachelors in political science and minor in philosophy.  In addition to serving as EIC of the Center, Anthony is also the Executive Editor of Albany Law's Government Law Review and the Treasurer of the Italian American Law Society. Upon graduation, Anthony will be working as an Assistant Distract Attorney at the Oneida County District Attorney's Office.


Lawrence Henry Cooke has been described as “a giant . . . [i]n every good and important way.” For a man who began his work days at four in the morning, it cannot be overstated how impressive his impact on the law, not only on the subject matter he covered, but also on the people he encountered along the way.

This paper examines the Judge’s rise to the court, his key decisions as an associate judge and how they impacted they law as well as his decisions as Chief Judge and their impact on the law. The impact will focus mostly on the impact his opinions had on the criminal law field. Lastly, this work concludes with a discussion on his impact on the people he worked with and concluding remarks.

Born in Monticello, New York, Judge Cooke was heavily influenced by his father, George, who as a graduate of Albany Law School, was elected Sullivan County District Attorney in 1909. George Cooke made the transition from attorney to judge when he was elected to County Judge of the Surrogate and Children’s Court in 1926, a position he would spend the next twenty-two years working. Judge Cooke would learn from his father a lesson he would continue to share throughout his career, “when in doubt, always take the high road.”

Judge Cooke originally attended Harvard Law School before transferring to Albany Law School to obtain his law degree. He began his practice at the law office of John Lyons. While in private practice, he also worked as a volunteer fireman, was elected as Supervisor of the Town of Thompson and even filled his father shoes by becoming elected to the County Judge of Surrogate and Children’s Court in 1959. This ultimately led to his becoming elected to the Justice of the Supreme Court in the Third Department of New York in 1961, which then led to a cross party nomination by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller in 1968 to New York State’s Appellate Division, Third Department.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Lawrence H. Cooke: A Career That Went Beyond the Bench

By Parker Niles
Parker Niles is a 2017 cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. He earned his undergraduate degree in History from Union College.
While in law school, Parker was an Executive Editor for Notes and Comments for Volume 80 of the Albany Law Review. He has also served as a teaching assistant and as a judicial extern for the Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino in the U.S. District Court for Northern New York.
Parker is currently a first-year associate at Holland & Knight in Boston.

Judge Lawrence H. Cooke’s reputation as a judge and then the Chief Judge for the New York State Court of Appeals was well earned.  He did not get a bid to the Court of Appeals on his first try in 1972,  but when he was finally elected in 1974, he was voted in by one of the highest margins ever.

Judge Cooke then went on to become one of the most respected judges to ever sit on the Court of Appeals. He was known for his work ethic, being fair and practical, caring for others, and being a proponent of state constitutional law.

Lawrence Cooke was born on October 15, 1914 in Monticello, New York.  He was born into a family with a background of working in the public sector of the law as his father, George L. Cooke, was the county judge, surrogate judge, and children’s court judge of Sullivan County for many years.

After graduating from Monticello High School, Cooke attended Georgetown University. After graduating from college, Cooke decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and attend law school.  Cooke began his law studies at Harvard Law School, but then soon transferred to his father’s alma mater, Albany Law School.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke: An Era of Progression in New York State

By Jaime M. Collins

Jaime Collins is a third-year student at Albany Law School. She graduated from the University of Albany in 2012 with a major in Political Science and a double minor in Chinese and History. She has been working at the New York State Assembly since 2012, and continues to do so while attending Albany Law.
Jaime is currently a member of the Albany Law Review; she is this year's Executive Editor for the annual New York Appeals issue. She has been interning at the Albany County District Attorney’s Office since this past summer. She previously interned at the Appellate Division, Third Department, for Justice Christine M. Clark.
Upon graduation, Jaime hopes to pursue a career as a Prosecutor.
This paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

This paper takes a look at some of the many landmark decisions written by Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke, Albany Law School class of 1938. Undeniably, many of his decisions have had a lasting impact on the jurisprudence of the New York Court of Appeals and especially the law of fundamental rights.

The first part of this paper is a brief introduction to Chief Judge Cooke’s journey to the high court. The second part is an examination of his landmark decisions, divided into three parts: first, an analysis of those decisions written by Chief Judge Cooke regarding a defendant’s fundamental right to counsel; second, an analysis of vehicle searches and a comparison to the Supreme Court’s rulings on the same topic; and third, an analysis regarding due process.

Chief Judge Cooke authored all of the cases that will be discussed. The paper closes with a few concluding observations.
_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.