You are here: / / Reopening of Suppression Hearing to Address Deficiency in People’s Case (...

Reopening of Suppression Hearing to Address Deficiency in People’s Case (Pointed Out by the Defense in Post-Hearing Papers) Okay (But See People v Kevin W, 187, Ct App 11-21-13)

The First Department determined the suppression court properly allowed the suppression hearing to be reopened to address a deficiency in the People’s case:

The court providently exercised its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing, after both sides had rested and submitted legal arguments but before any decision on the merits had been made, to allow the People’s witness to provide additional testimony establishing the legality of the police conduct … . “A request to present additional evidence in this type of situation should be addressed to the court’s discretionary power to alter the order of proof within a proceeding …, rather than being governed by the restrictions on rehearings set forth in People v Havelka (45 NY2d 636 [1978])” (id. at 481).

Defendant argues that since the reopening came after defense counsel had pointed out a deficiency in the People’s case, there was a heightened risk of tailored testimony. However, “one of the purposes of requiring timely and specific motions and objections, a requirement applicable to suppression hearings, is to provide the opportunity for cure … . It would be illogical to require a defendant, for preservation purposes, to point out a deficiency at a time when it can be corrected, but then preclude the People from correcting the deficiency. In Whipple, the Court of Appeals disapproved of such a notion, which it described as “a sort of gotcha’ principle of law” (97 NY2d at 7).  People v McCorkle, 2013 NY Slip Op 07835, 1st Dept. 11-26-13

 

You might also like
ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).
STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE OPINION; TO THE EXTENT ANY OF THE STATEMENTS COULD BE REGARDED AS FACT RATHER THAN OPINION, THE STATEMENTS WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH ACTUAL MALICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE.
PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE RELIANCE UPON THE INFLATED RENTS DESCRIBED IN THE FILED REGISTRATION STATEMENTS; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE PAINT CONTAINED LEAD DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS PAINTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1960; HOWEVER QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PAINT AND INFANT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD POISONING, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO SHOWING THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL PRIOR TO THE FALL WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE; UNDER THE FACTS, STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WERE NO GROUNDS TO DISTURB THE FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE BY THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE FINDINGS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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

“Rent Paid In Advance” Lease Enforced/Insufficient Proof of Oral Modifi... Defendant’s Placement of a Bag in the Engine Compartment Deemed Inconsistent...