In this month's column we first provide an update of the status of the vacancies on the Court of Appeals. We then discuss two criminal cases in which the Court reached opposite conclusions on whether a defendant had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We also discuss a criminal case in which the Court found that the failure of the police to electronically record a custodial interrogation does not necessitate an adverse inference instruction against the People. Lastly, we discuss a case in which the Court elaborated on the standing requirements for challenges to governmental actions in land use matters.

Composition of the Court

On Dec. 1, 2015 Governor Andrew Cuomo nominated Judge Janet DiFiore to be the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. As we noted in last month's column, the Judiciary Law requires the New York State Senate to confirm or deny the appointment no later than 30 days after the nomination. The Court currently has six members by reason of the retirement of Judge Susan Read on Aug. 24, 2015, and that number will be reduced to five on Dec. 31, 2015, upon the retirement of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman. A slate of nominees for Judge Read's seat has not yet been sent to the governor.

The state constitution requires five judges for a quorum and four judges to reach a decision. The Court has scheduled 20 cases for argument in the January 2016 Term, 11 of which appear to be criminal cases.

Should any of the five-judge quorum recuse himself or herself from any of the January cases prior to the confirmation of the newly nominated chief judge, such cases would lose a quorum and cannot be heard. Moreover, even in the absence of a recusal, any cases argued before a five-judge quorum and decided by a 3-2 decision will also have to be reargued when the Court is back at full strength.

Ineffective Assistance

The Court recently granted leave to appeal in a number of cases in which a defendant sought to overturn his criminal conviction based upon the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Two of those cases, People v. Harris and People v. Ambers, are noteworthy in that they involved similar underlying facts but the Court reached opposite conclusions.