You are here: / ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, ...

Search Results

/

ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined the police officer’s asking defendant (a passenger in a car pulled over for a traffic infraction) why he was nervous was a nonincriminating question. Therefore defendant’s statement he had “a little bit of weed” and the results of a search were not subject to suppression:

We conclude that, after the stop, the officer was permitted to approach defendant as a passenger in the vehicle and ask nonincriminating questions … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the officer’s question in response to defendant’s manifest nervousness did not “exceed[ ] a request for information and the question[ ] was neither invasive nor focused on possible criminality” … . Indeed, defendant’s admission that he possessed marihuana in response to the officer’s inquiry “went far beyond what the officer’s words could reasonably expect to evoke” … . People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07776, 4th Dept 11-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/SUPPRESSION (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/STREET STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED AN NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)

/

NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE (WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT).

The Fourth Department determined that not asking a grand jury to consider a charge is not the same as withdrawing a charge from the grand jury (which would require a judge’s permission to re-present):

… [T]he Court of Appeals has made clear that, ” [b]efore a grand jury may be said to have acted upon a charge, there must be some indication that it knew about it’ ” (Wilkins, 68 NY2d at 274). Moreover, “[t]here is no evidence in this record that would raise the primary concern of . . . Wilkins, namely that the People withdrew [the criminal sale charges] in order to present [them] to a more compliant grand jury” … . The People’s decision not to present the criminal sale charges for the consideration of the first grand jury is not ” fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives underlying CPL 190.75′ ” … , and we therefore conclude that this case does not present those ” limited circumstances’ ” to which the holding of Wilkins applies (id.). People v Lopez, 2016 NY Slip Op 07772, 4th Dept 11-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT)/GRAND JURIES (NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT)

/

JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge should have inquired further into the allegation of juror bias. One of defendant’s friends told the court two jurors were overheard referring to defendant as a scumbag during a recess:

“If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . the court must discharge such juror” (CPL 270.35 [1]). The standard for discharging a sworn juror is satisfied ” when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict’ ” … . There is a well-established framework by which the court must evaluate a sworn juror who, for one reason or another, may possess such a state of mind … .

To make a proper determination, the court “must question each allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defendant” (Buford, 69 NY2d at 299). “In a probing and tactful inquiry, the court should evaluate the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case” (id.). During the inquiry, “the court should carefully consider the juror’s answers and demeanor to ascertain whether [his or] her state of mind will affect [his or] her deliberations” (id.). That accomplished, the court must place the reasons for its ruling on the record (see id.).

It has been emphasized repeatedly that ” each case must be evaluated on its unique facts’ ” … . To that end, the court must hold a Buford inquiry whenever there are facts indicating the possibility of juror bias, and must not base its ruling on speculation … . Not only does the court’s failure to hold an inquiry under such circumstances constitute reversible error, but its failure to place the reasons for its ruling on the record also constitutes reversible error … . Such errors are not subject to harmless error analysis … . People v Kuzdzal, 2016 NY Slip Op 07768, 4th Dept 11-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR BIAS, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

/

CLAIMANT PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR FAILURE TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE SETTLING A RELATED TORT ACTION, MEANING OF THIRD PARTY ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined claimant did not seek permission from her Workers’ Compensation carrier before settling another action which arose from the some of the same allegations as her Workers’ Compensation claim. Therefore she was precluded from receiving future Workers’ Compensation benefits. Claimant unsuccessfully argued that the federal court action which settled was not a “third party” action within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law because the action was against claimant’s co-worker and employer, not a “third party:”

“Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) requires either the carrier’s consent or a compromise order from the court in which the third-party action is pending for a claimant to settle a third-party action and continue receiving compensation benefits” … . Claimant urges that her federal lawsuit was not a third-party action since the statute addresses “the negligence or wrong of another not in the same employ” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [1]) and the associate dean who harassed her had the same employer as her. The Court of Appeals, however, has recently reiterated that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, “‘read in its entirety and in context, clearly reveals a legislative design to provide for reimbursement of the compensation carrier whenever a recovery is obtained in tort for the same injury that was a predicate for the payment of compensation benefits'” … . “The Court reasoned that “‘[i]t would be unreasonable to read the statute as mandating a different result merely because the recovery came out of the pockets of a coemployee [or the employer] and not from the resources of a stranger'” … . Matter of Shiner v SUNY At Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07738, 3rd Dept 11-17-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CLAIMANT PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR FAILURE TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE SETTLING A RELATED TORT ACTION, MEANING OF THIRD PARTY ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED)

/

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF THE FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT.

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall and any defect that might have existed was deemed trivial:

Defendants established prima facie that any defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was insignificant and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed … . They submitted plaintiff’s testimony that he could not describe the characteristics of the alleged defect or specify exactly where on the sidewalk he fell, and an affidavit by an expert who took photographs and measured the area and found no defect presenting an elevation differential of more than one quarter inch and no space between sidewalk slabs greater than one half inch. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the photographs were taken and the inspection performed almost two years after the accident is immaterial. Defendants submitted testimony that there had been no repairs to the sidewalk since the accident, and plaintiff does not argue that the photographs do not show the sidewalk in substantially the same condition as existed at the time of the accident.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. He was unable to describe the defect, except to say that it was not wide and it was not deep, and he cites no surrounding circumstances that enhanced the danger. Nor did he offer any measurements of the alleged defects in the area of his fall in refutation of defendants’ expert’s measurements. Saab v CVS Caremark Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07763, 1st Dept 11-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/TRIVIAL DEFECTS (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)

/

FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked off the back of a flatbed truck. The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action was properly dismissed (no sufficiently specific industrial code regulation applied). And defendants’ control over the injury-producing work was insufficient to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The injured plaintiff testified that a metal beam, while being placed on a flatbed truck, fell off the blades of a forklift, slamming plaintiff’s foot and causing him to fall off the truck. This unrefuted testimony established prima facie that “plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” and therefore that liability exists under Labor Law § 240(1) … . The cases that defendants rely on are inapposite, since they involve not objects falling on or toward workers on flatbeds but workers falling from flatbeds, implicating only the adequacy of safety devices for falling workers, which is not at issue here … .

Nor was plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries since the injuries “were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which [his coworker] lowered the beam” … . McLean v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07754, 1st Dept 11-17-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW, (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/ ,

STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION.

The Court of Appeals, affirming the denial of a suppression motion, explained the standard of review in the Court of Appeals for mixed questions of law and fact:

… [P]olice were dispatched … after an anonymous caller informed a 911 operator that two black males were walking back and forth … carrying silver colored guns on their waists. One individual was described as wearing a white t-shirt with red letters. The other was wearing a black t-shirt.

Two uniformed police officers, each driving a marked patrol car, responded to a radio dispatch concerning the 911 call. The first officer to arrive observed two black males walking side-by-side … . One male had a black t-shirt and the other male wore a two-toned blue jacket, over what appeared to the officer to be a light-colored t-shirt. The officer parked his vehicle and approached the men on foot. As soon as they saw the officer, one man fled into a backyard and the other man, defendant, continued to walk southbound … . The officer pursued the fleeing man with his gun drawn and observed the man hide what was later discovered to be a handgun underneath a pile of leaves.

When the second officer arrived at the scene, he observed the fleeing man run into the backyard with the first officer running after him and defendant walking … . No one else was in the area. As the second officer parked and exited his vehicle, defendant yelled an expletive and fled. The officer gave chase and observed a handgun fall from defendant’s waist.

The [Appellate Division] explained that defendant’s flight upon seeing the second officer exit his vehicle provided the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant his pursuit of defendant, and the fact that defendant dropped the gun during the pursuit gave rise to probable cause to arrest … .

The issue of whether the second officer had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant is a mixed question of law and fact, limiting our review … . Because there is record support for the determination of the lower courts, we affirm … . People v Gayden, 2016 NY Slip Op 07702, CtApp 11-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/STREET STOPS (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SUPPRESS, MOTIONS TO (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)

/

APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The First Department, affirming a neglect finding, explained that appellant was properly found to be “a person legally responsible for the subject child:”

A person legally responsible for a child is defined as the child’s “custodian, guardian, or any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time.” A “[c]ustodian may include any person continually or at regular intervals found in the same household as the child when the conduct of such person causes or contributes to the . . . neglect of the child” (Family Ct Act § 1012[g]). A person who “acts as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” is a person legally responsible for a child’s care … .

The determination of whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the circumstances in each case. Factors to be considered include the frequency and nature of the contact, the nature and extent of the control exercised by appellant over the child’s environment, the duration of appellant’s contact with the child, and appellant’s relationship with the child’s parent … .

Appellant testified that he cared for the younger children every work day by taking them to school and picking them up, preparing meals, cleaning the home, preparing the children’s clothing, grocery shopping, and providing financial assistance to the household. The school social worker and appellant both testified that M.W. lived in the home in September 2014, when the incident took place. Although appellant later changed his testimony concerning her residence, the court properly credited his initial statement and found that he was a person legally responsible for M.W. Given her age, she did not require the same hands-on care as the younger children, but his testimony reflected that he contributed to the functioning of the household of which she was a part and had frequent regular contact with her … . Matter of Keniya G. (Avery P.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07752, 1st Dept 11-17-16

 

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/NEGLECT (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

/

PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

The First Department determined the conclusory allegations in defendant’s motion to suppress were sufficient, under the circumstances, to warrant a suppression hearing:

In People v Wynn (117 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2014]), we held that the court erred in summarily denying the motion of defendant’s codefendant to suppress statements and physical evidence as the fruits of an unlawful arrest, notwithstanding the conclusory nature of the factual allegations in her suppression motion, where “[a]lthough the People provided defendant with extensive information about the facts of the crime and the proof to be offered at trial, they provided no information whatsoever, at any stage of the proceedings, about how defendant came to be a suspect, and the basis for her arrest, made hours after the crime at a different location” (id. at 487-488). Because the factual allegations in the People’s pleadings and relevant disclosures were materially the same in this case, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress, although it asserted nothing more than that probable cause was lacking, was sufficient under the circumstances to entitle him to a hearing. Unlike the situation in People v Lopez (5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]), defendant’s statement did not “on its face show[] probable cause for defendant’s arrest.” People v Terry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07751, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (STATEMENTS, PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)

/

INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.

The First Department determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment relieving them of liability for the costs of a tax audit should have been granted. In a stock purchase agreement (SPA) plaintiffs agreed to indemnify Dearborn for costs associated with tax audits relating to any time up until the closing date. Dearborn had been sold by plaintiffs to a third party. A tax audit of Dearborn was conducted resulting in a $2.2 million tax assessment. In violation of the SPA, Dearborn did not notify plaintiffs of the tax audit. The SPA provided that the failure to notify would be actionable only to the extent plaintiffs were prejudiced by it. The issue before the First Department was whether the prejudice must be economic loss, or whether the inability to control the defense of the tax audit was sufficient. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held the deprivation of the right to control the defense of the audit was sufficient:

What we must determine, therefore, is the standard that plaintiffs must meet to demonstrate that the untimely notice of the second audit that they received caused them actual prejudice, and whether, on this record, that standard has been met. We agree with plaintiffs that, contrary to the view of Supreme Court and the position of defendants, in view of their “sole right” under the SPA to “control” the defense of the second audit (expressly including the rights to choose counsel and to settle), plaintiffs need not establish “tangible economic injury” to show that they have been actually prejudiced by the late notice … . Rather, to establish actual prejudice due to late notice, it suffices for an indemnitor afforded the right to control the defense of an idemnifiable claim to show that it was deprived of its right to exercise that right for a material portion of the proceedings on the claim. Conergics Corp. v Dearborn Mid-West Conveyor Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 07750, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT IS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)/INDEMNIFICATION (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)

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