People v. Ferraro
Docket 2019-06080
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02416
- Docket
- 2019-06080
Appeal from a judgment convicting defendant after a guilty plea and from the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of his omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's 2019 conviction for criminal possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. The court reviewed the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence recovered during a traffic stop. The court found the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal invalid but held that the suppression motion was properly denied without a hearing because the supporting papers were conclusory and did not allege sufficient facts to require a hearing. Unpreserved constitutional challenges to the gun statute were not considered.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Supreme Court erred by denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence recovered during a traffic stop.
- Whether the defendant's written and oral waiver of the right to appeal was valid.
- Whether Penal Law § 265.01-b is unconstitutional under Bruen or the Privileges and Immunities Clause (whether these claims were preserved for appeal).
Court's Reasoning
The court held the written appeal waiver was invalid because it misstated the law and misrepresented rights, and the oral colloquy did not cure those defects given the defendant's inexperience. Because the waiver was invalid, appellate review of the suppression claim was permitted. However, the suppression motion failed on the merits: the defendant's papers were conclusory and lacked factual allegations sufficient to require a Huntley/Mapp-type hearing, so the summary denial was proper. Constitutional challenges to the statute were unpreserved and not reviewed on the merits.
Authorities Cited
- People v Huntley15 NY2d 72
- Mapp v. Ohio367 U.S. 643
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen597 U.S. 1
- People v Nicholson211 AD3d 852
Parties
- Appellant
- Nico Ferraro
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
- Judge
- Paul Wooten, J.
- Judge
- Lourdes M. Ventura, J.
- Judge
- Lisa S. Ottley, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Judgment (conviction) date
- 2019-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking further appellate review
The defendant may consult counsel about whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, though preservation issues and the merits of the suppression claim make success uncertain.
- 2
Review trial record for preservation of issues
Defense counsel should review the trial court record to confirm whether any constitutional claims were raised and preserved; unpreserved claims are generally barred on appeal.
- 3
Evaluate postconviction options
If applicable, counsel may explore postconviction relief avenues (e.g., CPL review or collateral challenges) based on any newly discovered facts or constitutional developments.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and held that the judge did not err in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to suppress the firearm because the supporting papers lacked sufficient factual detail.
- Does the defendant's invalid appeal waiver change the outcome?
- No. Although the written waiver was invalid and did not bar appellate review, the court still found the suppression claim meritless and affirmed the judgment.
- Were the constitutional challenges to the gun law decided?
- No. Challenges arguing the statute is unconstitutional under Bruen or the privileges-and-immunities right to travel were not raised in the trial court and therefore are unpreserved, so the court declined to review them.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision primarily affects the defendant, the prosecution, and future litigants in similar suppression or appeal-waiver situations in the Second Department.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Ferraro - 2026 NY Slip Op 02416 People v Ferraro 2026 NY Slip Op 02416 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Nico Ferraro, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2019-06080, (Ind. No. 303/18) Angela G. Iannacci, J.P. Paul Wooten Lourdes M. Ventura Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira-Koessler, and Philip Amur of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kenneth C. Holder, J.), rendered April 22, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Steven W. Paynter, J.), without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant was arrested and charged, inter alia, with criminal possession of a firearm, after police officers recovered a firearm from his vehicle during a traffic stop. The defendant filed an omnibus motion, among other things, to suppress physical evidence on the ground that the traffic stop was unlawful and to suppress the defendant's statements made to law enforcement officials. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the omnibus motion which was to suppress the defendant's statements made to law enforcement officials to the extent of directing a Huntley hearing ( see People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72) but denied, without a hearing, that branch of the omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, and sentence was imposed. Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal misstated the applicable law and was misleading and further misstated that the defendant was giving up the right to assigned counsel and postconviction remedies ( see People v Nicholson , 211 AD3d 852, 853; People v Habersham , 186 AD3d 854). Under the circumstances of this case, including the defendant's lack of experience with the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court's oral colloquy—which also included the misstatement that "as a result of this plea, . . . the conviction and sentence will be final"—was insufficient to cure the defects of the written waiver and to demonstrate a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary appeal waiver ( see People v Trigueros-Hernandez , 243 AD3d 817, 818; People v Gill , 222 AD3d 660, 661; People v Nicholson , 211 AD3d at 853). Since the purported appeal waiver was invalid, it does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence ( see People v Muhammad , 231 AD3d 868, 869). However, the defendant's contention is without merit. Although it might have been better practice for the court, in the interest of judicial economy, to have included a Mapp hearing ( see Mapp v Ohio , 367 US 643) with the Huntley hearing ( see People v Mendoza , 82 NY2d 415, 429-430), it was not error for the court to summarily deny that branch of the omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The defendant's supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to require a hearing on that branch of the motion ( see People v Cunningham , 194 AD3d 954, 955). The defendant's contentions that Penal Law § 265.01-b is unconstitutional in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1) and as a violation of the right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution are unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to raise those constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court ( see People v Cabrera , 41 NY3d 35, 42). We decline to review the unpreserved contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph