People v Naughton, Carlton E.
Motion No: 2023-03842
Slip Opinion No: 2026 NY Slip Op 64474(U)
Decided on March 18, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M312000

DF/

BETSY BARROS, J.P.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS

JANICE A. TAYLOR

ELENA GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ.

2023-03842, 2025-11907

The People, etc., respondent,

v Carlton E. Naughton, appellant.

(Ind. No. 70095/2022)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeals from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered March 24, 2023, and November 18, 2022, respectively. By order to show cause dated October 8, 2025, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why the appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022, should not be dismissed on the ground that the notice of appeal from that judgment was untimely (see CPL 460.30). Motion by the appellant, in effect, pursuant to CPL 460.30 to deem the notice of appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022, to be timely filed or, in the alternative, pursuant to People v Syville (15 NY3d 391) for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022.

Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the motion by the appellant and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022, is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion by the appellant which is, in effect, pursuant to CPL 460.30 to deem the notice of appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022, to be timely filed is granted, and the notice of appeal from the judgment rendered November 18, 2022, is deemed timely filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion by the appellant is otherwise denied as academic.

BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, TAYLOR and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court