You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER...
,

THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE CASEWORKER, UNDER THE FACTS, ACTED AS AN AGENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statements made by defendant to a Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworker should have been suppressed because, under the facts, she was acting as an agent of law enforcement at the time of the interview:

… [T]he CPS caseworker testified at the Huntley hearing that, at the time she interviewed defendant, she was aware that defendant was being held on criminal charges and that he was represented by counsel. She further testified that she worked on a multidisciplinary task force composed of social services and law enforcement agencies, through which she received training on interviewing individuals accused of committing sexual offenses. Additionally, in keeping with task force protocol directing her to report to law enforcement any inculpatory statements made during CPS interviews, the CPS caseworker called the investigating officer immediately following the interview with defendant and promptly went to his office to report defendant’s statements. Under the circumstances of this case as reflected at the hearing, although the police did not specifically direct the CPS caseworker to conduct the interview on a specific date or time or accompany her to the interview … , we conclude that the CPS caseworker here had a “cooperative working arrangement” with police such that she was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed defendant and relayed his incriminatory statements … . The statements were thus obtained in violation of defendant’s right to counsel, and the court erred in refusing to suppress them … . Further, because defendant’s statements to the CPS caseworker were the only statements in which he admitted to having sexual contact with the victim, we cannot say that there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” … . People v Desjardins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04465, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

You might also like
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).
Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained
Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner (a School Administrator) Was Not Properly Served Upon a “School Officer”
THE CITY COMMISSIONER ORDERED THE DEMOLITION OF A GRAIN ELEVATOR, A CITY LANDMARK, WHICH HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY WIND; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED A HEARING ON WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR ORDERING DEMOLITION BUT IMPROPERLY PROHIBITED THE PETITIONER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT DEMOLITION WAS NOT NECESSARY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PULLED A LOAD OF WASTE BACKWARDS THROUGH AN ACCESS DOOR APPARENTLY EXPECTING THE LIFT TO BE POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE DOOR; THE LIFT HAD MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE GROUND; THE ACCESS DOOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED BEFORE THE LIFT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ACCESS DOOR LOCK, A SAFETY DEVICE, WAS MISSING (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
NO ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS WERE PLED SO THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AND WHETHER THE AREA WAS SLIPPERY BEFORE THE STORM, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT DID NOT WEIGH THE CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER PETITIONER... MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE...