New York Criminal Attorney Blog

New York’s February 2026 Traffic Law Overhaul: Why Even 1 MPH Could Put Your License at Risk

February 1, 2026 | Peter Howard Tilem

Beginning in February 2026, New York drivers are facing one of the most consequential changes to traffic enforcement in decades. While headlines have focused on the alarming claim that driving just 1 mile per hour over the speed limit could put you on the brink of losing your license, the real story is more nuanced — and far more serious for everyday motorists.

The change is not about creating a brand-new speeding law. Rather, it’s about a sweeping overhaul of the New York DMV driver point system, one that makes it significantly easier to reach a suspension threshold — even with so-called “minor” violations.

What Actually Changed in February 2026?

Understanding the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in New York: Past, Present & Future

November 6, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

Below you’ll find my short video overview on the topic:
What to know about The CCIA – YouTube

Introduction

The passage of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in New York has caused significant confusion and uncertainty among firearm license holders, practitioners, and policy observers alike. With much of the commentary online being outdated, incomplete, or simply incorrect, it’s important to take a moment to clarify:

NY Court Affirms Verdict in Recent Assault Case Finding “Serious Physical Injury” Element Was Met

October 31, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

A New York appellate panel upheld a Manhattan jury’s findings of first-degree assault and attempted second-degree assault, along with an aggregate eight-year sentence. The opinion turns on three pillars: medical testimony establishing “serious physical injury,” limits on using a defendant’s recorded statement at trial, and why a phone left unattended in a public area does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court also rejected a challenge to the grand jury based on the prosecutor’s choice not to present exculpatory hearsay.

Medical Proof of Serious Physical Injury

To sustain first-degree assault, the People had to show an injury creating a substantial risk of death. The attending physician described a deep neck laceration near major vessels, documented on CT, with active internal bleeding. Without rapid intervention, the bleeding would have continued into the neck, risking airway compromise and death by suffocation. That testimony satisfied both legal sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence review.

Court Rejects Challenge Based on Court Officer’s Relaying of Information to the Judge

October 12, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York Assault case, the First Department’s decision in People v Manley addresses a common voir dire scenario: a prospective juror relays information to a court officer, the officer communicates it to the judge, and the judge decides how to proceed. The court held that such a relay is ministerial, not judicial, and therefore does not constitute an improper delegation of authority. The opinion also underscores a familiar theme in criminal appeals—preservation remains essential. Objections and requests for inquiry must be placed on the record at the time they arise.

The Holding in Plain Terms

During jury selection, a prospective juror informed a court officer that he recognized the defendant from the neighborhood near a men’s shelter where the charged assault occurred. The court paused questioning, elicited a brief explanation from the officer about that exchange, and excused the juror. On appeal, the defense argued that the judge ceded authority to the officer. The First Department rejected that claim. Passing along a message from a juror is a ministerial task; the judge retained control and made the decision. Because the defense did not object, the claim was unpreserved under CPL 470.05(2). Nor did the situation qualify as a “mode of proceedings” error, a narrow exception reserved for fundamental defects where judicial supervision truly breaks down.

NEW YORK HANDLING OF EXCULPATORY DNA EVIDENCE

October 6, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

In a New York Burglary case, People v Moore, the First Department confronted a familiar but consequential problem: the prosecution disclosed exculpatory DNA results late. Rather than ordering a mistrial or dismissing the case outright, the trial court imposed targeted sanctions. The parties entered a stipulation that squarely informed the jury the DNA excluded the defendant as a contributor for one charged incident, and the court dismissed the count tied to that evidence. On appeal, the panel affirmed, emphasizing that the remedy preserved a “meaningful opportunity” to use the material and cured any prejudice. This outcome underscores a key Brady principle in New York practice: prejudice is the touchstone, and courts tailor remedies to neutralize it, not to punish.

The opinion matters beyond its facts because it illustrates how late Brady disclosures are managed when charges span different dates and locations. Segregating the tainted count and giving jurors an unfiltered exculpatory stipulation allowed the remainder of the case to proceed on unaffected incidents. That approach offers a blueprint for both trial courts and defense counsel facing compartmentalized, multi-event prosecutions.

What Counts as a “Meaningful Opportunity”

NY Appellate Court Weighs in on Second-Amendment Challenge to Gun Charges

September 30, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

When the First Department affirmed the conviction in People v Martin on September 30, 2025, it did more than uphold a jury’s verdict. It clarified how trial courts should handle modern Second Amendment arguments, New York’s permissive intent presumption, and the kind of proof that meets the State’s burden on a charge of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. If you are facing a gun charge, this decision shows where judges draw the line and how your defense can meet the State on those points.

The Second Amendment Challenge and Why Standing Matters

You may have heard that federal courts have been rethinking gun laws. Defendants often argue that New York’s licensing rules and possession statutes cannot stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. In Martin, the court took those arguments seriously but started with a gatekeeping question: can this defendant bring that challenge in the first place? That is the standing issue. Because the defense had not shown he even tried to obtain a New York license or that trying would have been pointless, the court treated broad Second Amendment attacks as out of reach for him. In other words, you cannot claim a law violates your rights in the abstract if your own conduct never put you in the protected category.

Probable Cause in Street Drug Cases after People v Tapia

September 16, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

New York’s highest court just affirmed a conviction in People v Tapia by upholding the trial court’s finding of probable cause. For you, that ruling matters because it confirms that officers can arrest on drug charges when trained narcotics cops observe a cluster of specific indicators—even without a “telltale sign” like seeing packets or hearing explicit drug talk. If you face a possession or sale charge arising from a quick street encounter, your defense should focus on dismantling those indicators one by one.

What the Court Emphasized

The Court of Appeals treated probable cause as a “mixed question” of law and fact. That means the appellate judges will not second-guess the lower court if the record reasonably supports the conclusion that officers had cause to arrest. In Tapia, the record included an experienced narcotics officer, a known drug hot spot, recent arrests in the same two-block area, and two separate hand-to-hand interactions with the same woman. Officers saw nervous glances, a reach to the waistband without looking down, an exchange of an object, the woman’s clenched fist, and a quick exit. Put together, those details supported the arrest.

New York Court Clarifies Extraordinary Circumstances Standard Under “Raise The Age”

September 9, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

If your teen faces a felony in New York’s Youth Part, you may be able to move the case to Family Court, where the focus shifts to services and rehabilitation. A new appellate ruling from Richmond County reverses a Youth Part decision that blocked removal and explains what “extraordinary circumstances” really means under CPL 722.23. The court held that a sixteen-year-old charged with weapon possession should have been sent to Family Court because the record did not show the kind of highly unusual facts needed to keep the case in criminal court.

What The Court Held

Prosecutors conceded the case did not fit any of the automatic retention categories. There was no claim the teen displayed a firearm in furtherance of another offense, caused significant injury, or committed a sex offense. Instead, the People asked the judge to keep the case using the extraordinary-circumstances safety valve. Their proof relied on the felony complaint and an assistant district attorney’s affirmation referencing a prior youthful offender matter and a social media livestream showing the youth holding a gun while using marijuana. No person was harmed, no property damage occurred, and the firearm was not used to further any other crime.

New York Appeals Court Limits Blanket Probation Searches In DWI Cases

September 3, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

If you pled to a DWI in New York and the court added a boilerplate “consent to search” condition to your probation, you may not have to accept it. In a new decision, the Appellate Division, First Department struck a broad consent-search term from a DWI probation sentence because it was not reasonably related to rehabilitation or tailored to the case. This ruling gives you a clear path to challenge intrusive, one-size-fits-all conditions that reach your home, your person, and your car.

What The Court Decided And Why It Matters

The case involved a person who accepted a conditional plea in Bronx Supreme Court to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. At sentencing, the court used a preprinted checklist that included a box requiring the person to consent to warrantless searches by probation of the person, residence, and vehicle. The sentencing judge never discussed that term on the record, and probation did not request it. On appeal, the First Department modified the judgment and struck the consent-search condition. The panel held that probation terms must be reasonably necessary to help you lead a law-abiding life and must be individually tailored to the offense, not copied from a form. This outcome narrows government reach into your home and protects you from blanket search demands that go beyond legitimate supervision.

How The Court Reached That Result

New York Penal Law § 65.10 requires tailoring. The court reviewed recent First Department cases and drew a consistent line. Where the offense did not involve weapons, where there was no history of weapons use, and where the record did not show ongoing illegal drug abuse or a probation recommendation for substance treatment, a consent-search term was not justified. The person here had prior alcohol-related driving convictions and admitted alcohol use from a young age, but the condition as written allowed searches of spaces where alcohol may be lawfully present. The court contrasted that overbreadth with a separate, unchallenged term permitting unannounced probation visits, which already allowed meaningful supervision without authorizing general searches. The opinion explains that visits may continue, but warrantless searches need a tighter fit to the facts. This reasoning places smart limits on supervision while keeping public safety tools intact.

New York Court Upholds Assault Conviction As A Hate Crime

August 27, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

If you are facing charges in New York involving allegations of hate crimes, you need to understand how courts review these cases on appeal. In a recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, the court affirmed a conviction for assault in the first degree as a hate crime after carefully reviewing the trial evidence, jury instructions, and post-trial motions. This ruling shows how seriously New York courts treat hate crime allegations and why you need an experienced defense when facing similar charges.

What The Court Decided

The case involved a violent incident where the accused struck the complainant with a board, first in the chest and then at the head, causing permanent injuries. Video surveillance, eyewitness testimony, and medical records were presented at trial. The jury found the accused guilty of assault in the first degree as a hate crime.

After the verdict, the defense filed a motion to set aside the jury’s decision, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and other trial errors. The case was remitted for further proceedings, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed both the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, as well as claims of ineffective assistance. The court found that the proof was legally sufficient to establish serious physical injury caused with intent, and that the attack was motivated by bias consistent with the hate crime statute.