Victoria Graffeo: Steady Hand, Lasting Impact on the New York Court of Appeals

By Jennifer E. Forward

Jennifer Forward is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School and graduated from Cazenovia College in 2022 with a B.S. in Psychology and Criminal Justice. While at Albany Law, she was deeply involved in the Anthony V. Cardona ’70 Moot Court Program, serving on the Moot Court Board for two years and leading the program as its Executive Director in her final year. Originally from Morrisville, NY, Jennifer now resides in Syracuse, NY, where she has worked at Lippes Mathias, LLP since her law school graduation, focusing her practice on health law and labor and employment law.


Judge Victoria Graffeo’s fourteen years on the New York Court of Appeals were defined by meticulous statutory interpretation, clarity, and a commitment to bright-line rules that continue to shape state jurisprudence.

Defying early expectations that she would be strictly pro-prosecution, her majority opinions expanded criminal jurisdiction in People v. Kassebaum and curtailed police overreach in People v. McIntosh. They safeguarded press freedoms in Holmes v. Winter and affirmed municipal zoning authority in Wallach v. Town of Dryden.

Across criminal law, intellectual property, constitutional protections, and land use, Judge Graffeo combined respect for precedent with adaptability to modern realities, leaving a steady and lasting imprint on New York law, even after her controversial non-reappointment.

________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

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.

Echoes from the Minority: The Power of Judge Rivera’s Dissent on New York’s Highest Court

By Alessia Tumminelli

Alessia Tumminelli, a December 2025 graduate of Albany Law School, did her undergraduate work at SUNY Brockport. At the Honors College there, she earned a B.S. in Psychology with a minor in Legal Studies, graduating summa cum laude with Dean’s List recognition every semester. Her undergraduate honors thesis examined wrongful convictions in the American criminal justice system, with an emphasis on deceptive psychological tactics used by law enforcement, the fallibility of memory-reliant evidence, and the influence of socially conditioned associations on jurors and legal actors.

Alessia’s legal experience includes internships with the Monroe County Supreme Court, the Office of the Federal Public Defender, the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office, and Tumminelli Law, as well as serving as a criminal law research assistant during her first summer of law school.

This paper examines the judicial philosophy and impact of New York Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera, with a particular focus on her powerful dissents. Although Rivera’s dissents may not carry the force of law with them, they nonetheless serve as powerful interventions that prioritize humanity alongside legal doctrine and challenge conventional narratives within the legal system.

Drawing from her unique professional background rooted in advocacy, public interest, and civil rights, Rivera brings a perspective to the table that contrasts with many of her colleagues whose careers were rooted in prosecution or corporate practice. By analyzing her writing style and recurring themes throughout her dissents, this paper argues that Rivera’s dissents function not only as rigorous legal reasoning, but also as an invitation for courts, scholars, and practitioners to reconsider preconditioned ideas of justice, fairness, and the voices that have been historically excluded from mainstream jurisprudence.

________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

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.

A Court in Crisis: The New York Court of Appeals in American Conflict

By Alec G.H. Levesque

Alec Levesque graduated cum laude from Albany Law School in 2025. Before attending Albany Law School, he earned a B.A. in Classics from the College of the Holy Cross.

During law school, he interned twice at the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, as well as for the Third Judicial District Administrative Office. In addition, he interned in the Health Law Clinic at the Edward P. Dwyer Justice Center.

Alec wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

When conflict arises that threatens a society’s very existence, every parameter of that society is put to the test–especially, perhaps, its legal institutions. Although perilous, it is this test that often provides the amplest opportunity for the law to evolve. In the case of the United States, while many may believe that this evolution stems exclusively from the Supreme Court, that court is far from alone.

This paper examines how New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has contributed to the nation’s law during periods of major conflict in the United States. This was true for the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and modern civil rights movements.

The purpose of the paper is to show that (1) the Court has historically played a leading role in shaping the law during such periods, and (2) that the conflict has conversely had a substantial effect on the Court’s own evolution.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

New York’s “Forever Wild” and the Chiefs

Three Chief Judges Opining on the State Constitutional Mandate

By E. Conor Graham

E. Conor Graham is a 2024 graduate of Albany Law School. He earned his bachelor's degree from Siena College, studying philosophy and international relations and affairs.

In law school, Conor was the Executive Editor for Lead Articles of Volume 87 of the Albany Law Review. He also interned at the United States Court for the Northern District of New York and at K&L Gates LLP.

Conor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard K. Eaton at the United States Court of International Trade. 

Article XIV, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, “the Forever Wild clause,” sets out that “[t]he lands of the state . . . constituting the forest preserve . . . shall be forever kept as wild lands.  They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” It is a unique provision, unlike any other found in the federal or another state constitution, and it protects nearly three million acres of state-owned Forest Preserve land in New York State.

The aim of this paper is to consider both the history and the trajectory of the Forever Wild clause as it comes before New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, through examining three important decisions related to the Forever Wild clause authored by three different Chief Judges of the court. Further, this analysis has the added benefit of focusing on the court’s leaders—the Chief Judges—presiding at the time of each case. Each section includes a brief discussion of the respective Chief Judge whose opinion will be discussed, followed by that judge’s opinion dealing with the Forever Wild clause.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Singing Like a Cannataro in a Coal Mine

The Meaning of Judge Anthony Cannataro’s Uptick in Dissents 

By Gianluca A. Alonzi

Gianluca A. Alonzi graduated Cum Laude from Albany Law School in 2024. Prior to attending Albany Law School, he earned a B.A. in Criminology from Penn State University.

Gianluca currently works for the Albany County District Attorney’s Office in the City Court Unit.

He wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre's Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

An interesting pattern that has begun to emerge in the New York Court of Appeals under the leadership of Chief Judge Rowan Wilson is the sudden increase in dissenting opinions written by Judge Anthony Cannataro. Cannataro was appointed in 2021 and never wrote a dissent until October of 2023. Since then, he has dissented in more than ten cases. 

There are a multitude of reasons why a judge may dissent and many times a close reading “between the lines” is necessary to fully understand why. 

This paper examines the background of the Court under the leadership of both former-Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and current-Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, along with the substance of Cannataro’s dissents. The purpose is to seek some underlying reasons why Judge Cannataro has become a dissenter, and what this may suggest about the state of New York’s highest court.

_____________________

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.

New York Court of Appeals: The Wilson Uptick

The caseload at NY's high court is inching up again.

The Wilson Uptick

on New York Court Watcher. 

Court of Appeals Judge George Bundy Smith

A Legacy of Judicial Excellence and Civil Rights Advocacy

By Kimberley Bernard

Kimberley Bernard is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, Kimberley earned her bachelor’s degree from the University at Albany, SUNY, where she majored in English with double minors in Business and Sociology.

At the law school, Kimberley has served as treasurer for the Black Law Student Association, was a semi-finalist in the 2022 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition, and was the recipient of the 2023 James Campbell Matthews Student Award. Currently, she works as a student assistant in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office.

With an interest in family law, Kimberley has spent the last few years dedicating herself to these matters. In the Spring of 2023, Kimberley interned with the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, representing clients faced with domestic violence issues before the court. During the summer of 2023, Kimberley worked as a Summer Law Clerk for Arquette Law Firm, focusing on family and matrimonial matters.

This fall semester, she has had a Field Placement in the chambers of the Honorable Richard Rivera and she serves as a part-time Legal Aide for the New York Attorney General’s Office’s Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigation Office.

George Bundy Smith, a distinguished jurist, left an indelible mark on the legal landscape of New York State during his tenure on New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. This paper examines his judicial philosophy, landmark decisions, and lasting impact on civil rights and social justice within the context of the Court of Appeals.

Raised amidst racial segregation, Judge Smith’s personal experiences with inequalities fueled his commitment to civil rights and social justice throughout his career. His journey from being the only African American in his high school class to serving on New York's high court showcased his dedication to justice, fairness, and equality.

This paper explores Judge Smith’s early life, legal career, and educational journey, which included experiences such as being a Freedom Rider during the Civil Rights Movement. His tenure as an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and as a law secretary to influential jurists provided him with insights into the legal system’s transformative power in promoting civil rights and social progress.

The paper delves into significant rulings and opinions authored by Judge Smith, including his majority opinion in People v. LaValle (2004) that challenged the constitutionality of a “deadlock instruction” in death penalty cases. Another significant opinion, People v. Calabria (2000), addressed prosecutorial misconduct’s impact on a fair trial. Additionally, this paper highlights Judge Smith’s impactful dissent in People v. Tortorici (1999), where he challenged the majority’s approach to due process in cases involving mental competency.

Judge Smith’s commitment to public service extended beyond the bench, as he actively championed civil rights causes, promoted diversity within the legal profession, and engaged in various legal organizations. While his decisions were not without criticism, Judge Smith’s legacy is one of unwavering dedication to justice, equality, and civil rights. His impact on the legal community continues to inspire future generations in their pursuit of a more just society.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Caitlin Halligan: Past Precedent and Future Predictions

By John K. Penman

John Penman is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to his legal education, John received his bachelor’s degree from Syracuse University where he won the school's undergraduate short fiction competition. At Albany Law, John is a Government Law Center Fellow and participant in Moot Court. 

John has additionally interned with the New York State Justice Center For the Protection of People With Special Needs, New York State Department of Education, and Office of Minority Counsel in the New York State Assembly.

Presently, John is working with clients through the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York’s Right to Counsel Program and Community Economic Development Clinic at the Edward P. Swyer Justice Center.

This paper presents a profile of Caitlin Halligan, an accomplished legal professional who recently secured an appointment as an Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Drawing from various sources, including her early life, education, career trajectory, and past judicial nominations, this paper sheds light on Halligan’s journey and provides insights into her potential role as an Associate Judge.

The analysis explores Halligan’s academic achievements, notable clerkships with federal courts, private practice experiences, and her tenure as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.  This paper also addresses concerns and expectations regarding Halligan’s corporate background, her pro bono work, and her ability to interpret the law fairly and equitably.

Finally, this paper discusses the potential impact of Halligan’s appointment on key legal issues in New York State, such as workers’ rights, corporate liability, and criminal justice.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Search and Seizure Under Chief Judge Wilson

Will his elevation lead New York to greater protections of privacy and freedom from government interference?

By Jordyn Conway

Jordyn Conway is a third year student at Albany Law School, where she is serving the community as Pro-Bono Scholar in her final semester.

Prior to attending law school, Jordyn was employed as a planning consultant addressing municipal and land-use issues in New York State. She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the SUNY ESF at Syracuse University, and briefly studied environmental planning and policy at University College Dublin, Ireland.

In addition to her academic studies at the law school, Jordyn has served as the Co-Chair for the Women’s Leadership Initiative Fellowship, Director of Finance the Moot Court Program, Sub-Editor for the Government Law Review, Teaching Assistant for Professor Armstrong’s Torts course, and has interned for the New York State Supreme Court, 4th Judicial District. This summer she is working as Summer Associate for Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLC.

 
It is anticipated that Chief Judge Rowan Wilson’s tenure as the leader of the New York Court of Appeals will take the state’s highest court in a more liberal direction, especially in consideration of the rights of the accused. As demonstrated in Chief Judge Wilson’s opinions, and even more notably in his dissents, he has expressed his views on how New York law should be interpreted and applied in cases where the protection of privacy related to search and seizure is at issue.

Overall, Chief Judge Wilson’s decisions have revealed that he has a rather liberal stance on Fourth Amendment federal issues and Article 1, Section 12 issues under New York’s state constitution. In multiple cases, Chief Judge Wilson has dissented where he felt the majority was too lenient in approving searches and that the standards for seeking or implementing a warrant needed to be heightened. Additionally, his dissents have argued for greater protections stemming from the state constitution rather than defaulting to the minimum protections offered by the federal Constitution.

This paper explores Chief Judge Wilson’s dissents in search and seizure cases to provide a legal analysis with regard to his views and how he might approach such issues in the future as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. 

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Story of Happy the Elephant

Matter of  Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny

By Dylon T. Newkirk

Dylon Newkirk has just begun his final year at Albany Law School and is expecting to graduate in May of 2024. During his time at Albany Law, Dylon has held various executive board positions. Dylon is the treasurer of the Historical Society of the New York Courts-Albany Law Chapter, Social Media Director for the Albany Law Golf Club, and treasurer and Assistant Captain for the Albany Law Hockey Club. Dylon is also a law clerk at Pierro, Connor & Strauss, LLC.

Prior to attending Albany Law, Dylon attended SUNY Albany, earning a Bachelor's degree in Political Science with dual minors in Business and Economics. Outside of the classroom, he greatly enjoys any time spent outdoors – whether he’s teeing it up on the links, or strolling through his carefully manicured flower garden.

The New York Court of Appeals has historically leaned liberal and been ahead of its time. The highest court in the state of New York has been on the forefront of guaranteeing rights years ahead of other states and the federal government. Unfortunately, that historical trend did not hold true in the case of Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny.

Happy is a fifty-one-year-old Asian elephant who is currently being housed in the Bronx Zoo. Happy has been there for most of her life, stuck for the entertainment of millions of people, after she was stolen from Thailand as an infant elephant. But things were not always so bad for Happy. At one point in time, she had her herd, but they have slowly died off. Therefore, Happy now lives in solitary confinement.

A petition for habeas corpus was brought on Happy’s behalf, but the Court of Appeals ruled that habeas corpus can only apply to humans. Did the court rule incorrectly? What can we make of the longest dissent in Court of Appeals history? Could a new court possibly reverse the error? This paper takes an in-depth look at Nonhuman Rights Project v. Breheny and attempts to answer these questions.

_____________________

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.

People v. Tiger, “[M]ore than it should and less than it seems”

The Court of Appeals’ Over-Emphasis on Finality and Conservation of Judicial Resources

By Olivia Harvey

Olivia Harvey is a 2022 graduate of Albany Law School. During law school, she served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process, as well as a teaching assistant and research assistant for Professor Vincent Bonventre.

Olivia also served as an intern at the law school’s Immigration Law Clinic, where she provided direct representation to an asylum-seeker, and as an intern at the Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office, where she worked in the appeals unit.

Olivia is currently an Assistant District Attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

In its 2018 decision in People v. Tiger, the New York Court of Appeals held that, for those convicted of a crime by guilty plea, there exists no right to bring a motion for post-conviction relief challenging the conviction on the basis of actual innocence, unless the claim involves newly discovered DNA evidence.

In dissent, Judge Rowan Wilson castigated the majority opinion for doing “more than it should and less than it seems.” Wilson criticized the majority for characterizing the issue in the case more broadly than necessary, while simultaneously failing to answer the question of whether the disparity its holding created between those convicted by plea and those convicted by trial verdict rendered either the specific provision at issue, or the statutory scheme as a whole, unconstitutional.

This paper seeks to demonstrate that the majority opinion does in fact do “more than it should and less than it seems,” in more than one way. Throughout the majority opinion, the Court focuses more than it should on how preventing defendants convicted by plea from bringing a claim of actual innocence serves society’s interest in the finality of criminal cases and judicial economy. At the same time, the societal interest in finality is far less important than the majority makes it seem; the fact that other states that have successfully permitted those convicted by plea to bring a claim of actual innocence and the structure of the statutory scheme illustrate this point.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Eugene M. Fahey and Consequentialism

By Claire Stratton

Claire Stratton is 3L at Albany Law School. She is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin.

This year, Claire is serving as the Executive President of the Student Bar Association and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Science and Technology. For the past two years, Claire has been a Student Ambassador for the school. Claire has served on SBA each year she has been at Albany Law, first as a 1L representative and then as 2L Class President.

Additionally, Claire has served on many Executive Boards around campus, including, Phi Alpha Delta, the Business Law Society, the Gaelic Law Society, and the Albany Law Literary Circle.

Claire has been a law clerk for the Towne Law Firm for about a year now and will be graduating this May!

Eugene M. Fahey, who recently retired from New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, can be described as a true New Yorker with a strong sense of devotion to the public. Fahey authored many notable opinions, addressing a wide range of topics, including same-sex marriage and gun violence.

Judge Fahey embraced consequentialism, a method of judicial interpretation, throughout his career on the bench. This is apparent in some of his most well-known opinions.

Consequentialism is a method that factors in the effects and ramifications of a decision when determining the best resolution of an issue. This paper analyzes some of Judge Fahey’s most significant opinions and his use of consequentialism in them.

_____________________

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.

Chief Judge Stanley H. Fuld: Ahead of His Time

By George Lupe

George Lupe graduated summa cum laude from Albany Law School in May 2021. Prior to attending Albany Law, he graduated summa cum laude from SUNY Albany.

During his time at Albany Law School, George was a member of the Albany Law Review and a Teaching Assistant for Property Law. He also interned with Judge Kahn in the Northern District of New York during the summer of 2019 and with Seward & Kissel, LLP during the summer of 2020.

George is now a Law Clerk at the Seward & Kissel firm.

Many who are familiar with the New York Court of Appeals and its history would agree that Chief Judge Stanley Howells Fuld is one of the all-time greats. He had a brilliant approach to writing opinions, and he was never afraid to take a new and unique stance which would often end up moving the law forward in both New York and even the United States.

An analysis of his opinions in both conflict of laws and in criminal law will reveal his judicial philosophy. Chief Judge Fuld truly cared about what outcome would make the most sense and be most fair to the people. It is no wonder that the United States Supreme Court vindicated some of his dissents in the area of criminal law.

Fuld wrote opinions that would greatly influence both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. He made an impact that still affects countless people in the American judicial system today.

___________________________

To read the paper, open HERE. 

New York’s Gray on Investigative Stops

How the Court of Appeals has Restricted Stops of Citizens by Police

By Gerald P. Casertino

Gerald Casertino is currently an incoming associate with Murphy Burns LLP in Albany, New York, focusing on municipal defense and §1983 actions. He has also served as a police officer since 2017.

Jerry graduated summa cum laude from Albany Law School with his J.D. in 2021. He was a member of the Albany Law Review and a Sponsler Fellow/Teaching Assistant in Criminal Law, Torts, and Contract Law. He holds a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, from Siena College and is originally from Glens Falls.

The year 2020 will be lauded as forever changing policing, especially in New York State. But the necessity to curb criminal activity and ensure public safety remains.

High-profile police-related deaths, rising crime, and the implementation of bail and discovery reform, all combined with the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in People v. Hinshaw, make the job of police officers more difficult. This paper will address how the New York Court of Appeals has restricted investigative stops beyond what is required by the federal constitution.  

___________________________

To read the paper, open HERE. 

Judith Kaye Has an Opinion Too: A Unifier’s Guide to Dissenting

By Alison C. Beck

Alison Beck graduated cum laude from Albany Law School in May 2021. Prior to attending law school, she graduated magna cum laude from St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY with a B.A. in English and Legal Studies.

During her time in law school, she worked as a law clerk at NYSUT before heading to the New York State Legislature. Alison worked in the Assembly Minority Counsel's Office before landing a position as a law clerk in the Senate Minority Counsel's Office.

She also worked as a research assistant for Dean Rosemary Queenan and participated in the Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Competition. However, her real claim to fame in law school has been her ability to "name that tune" in Professor Patrick Connors' classes.

Alison is currently an associate counsel at the New York State Senate Minority Counsel's Office.

There exists a double standard for women in the law, often seen as too aggressive or too emotional. New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye, known for her kindness and compassion, was likely stereotyped as the latter type of lawyer. Her judicial opinions often incorporated passionate and heartfelt language. This wasn’t a bad thing though; it also made her writing more powerful. Her desire to avoid division on the court exemplifies the level of sincerity and commitment she had to her beliefs when she dissented.

Kaye acknowledged throughout her life that she was always a writer first, that she went to law school only with the hope of landing a job at a newspaper or magazine company. The writings of a journalist have a particular gumption, their personal views and passions seem to seep through no matter what. In dissecting Judge Kaye’s writing—mainly her dissents, but also a few majorities where appropriate—I analyzed the pillars of her judicial identity and how they reflect traditional gender norms. What seeped through was a desire for fair and equal treatment under the law, compassion and understanding for the background of the parties, and a fierce defense of the defenseless.

_________________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.