You are here: / / THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR;...
,

THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT; THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO PRECLUDE THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the evidence defendant knew the codefendant was armed and shared the codefendant’s intent to cause serious injury was legally insufficient. Although the robbery second conviction was based on legally sufficient evidence, an unnoticed statement was allowed in evidence at trial, a reversible error:

… [D]efendant is entitled to a new trial on the second-degree robbery count. The People should not have been permitted to submit evidence of defendant’s August 9, 2016 statement to a detective regarding defendant’s discussion with the victim about the value of the latter’s jewelry because this statement was not properly noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(a). Although the People disclosed the interview generally, they did not disclose this particular statement … . At a suppression hearing, defendant only moved to suppress other statements not at issue on appeal, and the statement at issue was first revealed during trial testimony, at which time defendant moved for preclusion on the ground of lack of notice. People v Weathers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00741, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: If the People attempt to introduce a statement made by the defendant which was not provided in the CPL 710.30 notice, and no motion to suppress the statement had been made, introduction of the statement at trial must be precluded. In this case, it was not enough that the People disclosed the interview from which the statement was taken. No notice of the specific statement had been provided.

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
BAILEE CANNOT, PURSUANT TO THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, PURPORTED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE.
GIVING A SECOND ALLEN CHARGE AND ALLOWING THE JURY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING TO 5 OR 6 PM ON A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT THREE JURORS HAD TRAVEL PLANS FOR MONDAY, DID NOT CONSTITUTE COERCING THE VERDICT, PROVIDING BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT IMPROPER (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 77, PROPERLY RESOLVED THE DISTRIBUTION OF A $4.5 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT BY JP MORGAN CHASE IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES-RELATED ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.
THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING COLLAPSED FOR NO APPARENT REASON; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; IN ANY EVENT THE EXPERT’S OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO LOCK THE SCAFFOLD SPOKE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST 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

THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING... THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND...