You are here: / / BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S...
, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction and dismissing the count, and reversing the gang assault and assault first convictions, determined: (1) Brady material was withheld by redacting the name of a 911 caller who indicated defendant was not involved in the assault; (2) cross-examination of a police officer about a discrepancy between a complainant’s testimony and a statement attributed to the complainant in a police report should have been allowed; and (3) the judge should have inquired further after a juror indicated she “was not sure” about some of the convictions when the jury was polled:

While the contents of the 911 call may have provided some clues as to the identity of the caller, the defendant should not be forced to guess as to the identity of this caller. In addition, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the caller’s identity and contact information would have led to evidence that would have changed the result of the proceedings … . …

… [T]he court erred in precluding defense counsel from questioning the police witness about the contents of the report and the alleged prior inconsistent statement of complainant one …  . …

… [W]hen the jury was polled and asked if the verdict was theirs, juror number nine stated, “Um, I’m not sure, with some, but most of them, yes.” Although the Supreme Court thereafter inquired of juror number nine if the verdict announced to the court was her own, it did so by asking her “is that a yes or a no” in the presence of the remaining jurors, despite evidence before the court suggesting that juror number nine may have succumbed to pressure to vote with the majority even though she did not agree with the verdict as to certain counts. The court’s inquiry was therefore not sufficient … . People v Ramunni, 2022 NY Slip Op 02022, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here Brady material, the identity of a 911 caller, was withheld, cross-examination about inconsistent statements attributed to a complainant was not allowed, and a juror who, when polled, said she may not have agreed with verdict was not sufficiently questioned by the judge. One count of the indictment was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered on the gang assault and assault first counts.

 

You might also like
No Proof Misrepresentation Caused Decedent to Disinherit Daughter
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
“Temporary Substitute Vehicle” Not Excluded from Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy
THE TENANT HARASSMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SUPREME COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THAT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT).
AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF LAW, BUT WILL BE REVERSED WHERE, AS HERE, IT IS IRRATIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE AND SNOW AFTER GETTING OUT OF A VEHICLE RESULTED FROM OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (SECOND 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

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS... THE COMPANY WHICH STAFFED THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE...