People v Abdul Karim Al-Kanani, 26 NY2d 473: Mr. Haefeli wrote the brief for the defendant in the Court of Appeals which reversed a murder conviction on the basis that the prosecution had the defendant examined by a psychiatrist after he had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity without notifying the defendant’s counsel. This is a precursor to CPLR 250.10 (3) which now requires that if defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, the prosecution may obtain an order from the court to have the defendant examined with the defense attorney and the prosecutor being able to witness the examination but not being able to take an active role in the examination.

People v Concannon, 28 NY2d 854: Mr. Haefeli represented the defendant in the Court of Appeals which reversed a conviction for harassment on the basis that the prosecution failed to establish the intent to harass in the complainant.

People v Thasa, 32 NY2d 712: Mr. Haefeli wrote the brief for the defendant in the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower court’s determination dismissing the charges of murder against the defendant on the basis that that the defendant was unable to waive his constitutional rights at the time the confession was obtained by the prosecution. The defendant was a patient of Central Islip State Hospital at the time of the confession.

People v Hommel, 41 NY2d 427: Mr. Haefeli wrote the brief for the defendant in the Court of Appeals which reversed the defendant’s conviction of criminal negligent homicide on the basis the trial court in its instructions to the jury used facts from prior cases as illustrations to the jury. The Court of Appeals found that the guilt or innocence of a defendant is based solely upon the facts of the case being prosecuted.

Group for the S. Fork, Inc. v Town Bd. Of Southampton, 385 AD2d 506: Mr. Haefeli represented the Town of Southampton in the Appellate Division which found that the lower court’s denial of the request by Group for the S. Fork, Inc to amend its petition more than 2 years after the action had been commenced did not abuse the discretion of the court.

Village of Westhampton Beach v. Cayea 83 A.D. 2d 692: Mr. Haefeli represented the Village of Westhampton Beach in the Appellate Division which found that the defendants had failed to comply with the Village Code provisions requiring that their house located on Dune Road had to be elevated on piles. The Court directed that the defendants elevate the house on piles.

Westhampton Beach Assoc., v Incorporated Vil. Of Westhampton Beach, 151 AD3d 793: Mr. Haefeli represented the Village of Westhampton Beach in the Appellate Division which found that based upon the Village code provision, which had been drafted by Mr. Haefeli, regarding the establishment of a park fee, that a park fee in the amount of $776,307.00 was valid and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that the provision was unconstitutionally vague.