You are here: / Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab

Search Results

/ ,

Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department noted that a swab of a blood stain on defendant’s body was properly taken without a warrant. The DNA in the swab matched the victim’s. The court explained the criteria for a warrantless swab:

Defendant agreed to give his clothing to the police and, when he removed his shirt, an officer noticed a reddish brown stain on defendant’s chest that appeared to be blood. When asked what it was, defendant responded that it was a bruise. The officer swabbed the area, which later tested positive for blood and matched the victim’s DNA. Where, as here, the police did not obtain a warrant for the seizure of the blood evidence, “the police had to satisfy two requirements in order to justify the action taken. First, the police had to have reasonable cause to believe the [blood stain] constituted evidence, or tended to demonstrate that an offense had been committed, or, that a particular person participated in the commission of an offense . . . Second, there had to have been an exigent circumstance of sufficient magnitude to justify immediate seizure without resort to a warrant” … . We agree with the court that the police had reasonable cause to believe that the blood stain on defendant’s chest constituted evidence, and that the seizure was appropriate because it could have been easily destroyed by defendant … . People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 08540, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

/ ,

Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner’s Standing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals clarified the nature of the standing requirement for contesting municipal rulings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village of Painted Post had approved the sale of municipal water to a company which operates gas wells in Pennsylvania. As part of that project, construction of a railroad loading facility was approved. A resident of the village, Martin, was one of the petitioners seeking the annulment of the Village’s SEQRA rulings. Martin, who lives near the rail facility, alleged the noise from the facility was different in degree from that experienced by the general public (thus according him standing to bring the petition). Supreme Court agreed Martin had standing. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals determined Martin did in fact sufficiently allege standing. The fact that other nearby residents would experience the same intrusion as Martin was not dispositive:

The Appellate Division, in concluding that petitioner Marvin lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm “different from that of the public at large,” reasoning that because other Village residents also lived along the train line, Marvin did not suffer noise impacts different from his neighbors. * * *

To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.”]). The harm that is alleged must be specific to the individuals who allege it, and must be “different in kind or degree from the public at large”… , but it need not be unique. Here, petitioner Marvin is not alleging an indirect, collateral effect from the increased train noise that will be experienced by the public at large, but rather a particularized harm that may also be inflicted upon others in the community who live near the tracks.

The number of people who are affected by the challenged action is not dispositive of standing. …[S]tanding rules should not be “heavy-handed,” …[w]e are “reluctant to apply [standing] principles in an overly restrictive manner where the result would be to completely shield a particular action from judicial review” … . Applying the Appellate Division’s reasoning, because there are multiple residents who are directly impacted, no resident of the Village would have standing to challenge the actions of the Village, notwithstanding that the train noise fell within the zone of interest of SEQRA. That result would effectively insulate the Village’s actions from any review and thereby run afoul of our pronouncement that the standing rule should not be so restrictive as to avoid judicial review. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 08452, CtApp 11-19-15

 

/

Evidence Supported Conviction of Police Officer for Divulging an Eavesdropping Warrant

The First Department determined the evidence supported the conviction of a police officer for divulging the existence of an eavesdropping warrant. The warrant was issued in connection with an investigation of corrupt police officers. Defendant warned police officers about the warrant and cautioned them to be careful on the phone:

Penal Law § 250.20 states as follows: “A person is guilty of divulging an eavesdropping warrant when, possessing information concerning the existence or content of an eavesdropping warrant . . . , he discloses such information to another person . . .” The trial court, prior to rendering its verdict, explained that “knowledge, actual knowledge, is required[,]” and rejected the People’s argument that mere rumor would be enough to satisfy the requirements for the divulging count. On appeal, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that defendant divulged information concerning the existence and content of an eavesdropping warrant … , and we see no reason to set the verdict aside as against the weight of the evidence … . People v Cobb, 2015 NY Slip Op 08498, 1st Dept 11-19-15

 

/ ,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Can Not Be Used for the “Criminal History” Points Assessment

The sex offender risk classification was reversed because county court used a juvenile delinquency adjudication to calculate the “criminal history” points to be assessed. The Third Department noted that the juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be used for the “criminal history” calculation, but it can be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

… [B]ased on our recent holding in People v Shaffer (129 AD3d 54, 55-56 [2015]), County Court is precluded from using juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI [risk assessment instrument], although the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may still be “considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level” (id. at 56). People v Updyke, 2015 NY Slip Op 08481, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

/

Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Bring the Foreclosure Action

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to proceed with the foreclosure because the bank did not present evidence of the affiant’s first-hand examination of the original note and the bank did not explain how it came into possession of the original note:

To establish physical possession, plaintiff produced an affidavit by an assistant secretary, who stated that plaintiff’s “custodial system of record” showed that plaintiff “received the original [n]ote on February 16, 2007” and that plaintiff maintained “possession of the [n]ote at its storage facility” in Monroe, Louisiana. Noticeably absent is any representation by the assistant secretary that she examined the original note and, contrary to the dissent, the affidavit is devoid of any detail as to how plaintiff actually acquired possession of the original note … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 2015 NY Slip Op 08479, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

/ ,

Because the Lease Authorized Landlord to Make Repairs, the Erection of Scaffolding Could Not Constitute a Partial Eviction; Occupant Not Named on the Lease Owes Rent Under a Quantum Meruit Theory

With respect to the lessee of a garage, the First Department determined the landlord’s erection of scaffolding to make repairs was allowed by the lease and, therefore, did not constitute a partial eviction. With respect to a party which occupied the premises but which was not a party to the lease, the First Department determined rent was owed to the landlord under a quantum meruit theory:

The … defendants’ argument that they were partially evicted from the garage is unavailing. “To be an eviction, constructive or actual, there must be a wrongful act by the landlord” … . Plaintiff’s installation of temporary scaffolding as part of its repairs to the garage’s facade was not wrongful because it was authorized by the lease … . … “[T]enants are well advised . . . to specify some limits to the exculpatory clause concerning repairs” … . * * *

A claim by a landlord against a nonlessee occupant for use and occupancy should not be foreclosed simply because there is a lease covering the premises. The obligations of the lessee arising under the lease are distinct from the obligations of an occupant of premises toward the owner of those premises.

Notwithstanding the general rule that “[t]he existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … , in the landlord-tenant context, the occupant of premises is liable to the owner of the property for use and occupancy irrespective of the existence of a lease in the name of another entity: “[t]he obligation to pay for use and occupancy does not arise from an underlying contract between the landlord and the occupant[,] [but] [r]ather, an occupant’s duty to pay the landlord for its use and occupancy of the premises is predicated upon the theory of quantum meruit, and is imposed by law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties” … . Carlyle, LLC v Beekman Garage LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08499, 1st Dept 11-19-15

 

/

Copy Writer and Editor Was an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant copy writer and editor was an employee of Fox Mobile Distribution and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, the record contains substantial evidence that Fox exercised the requisite control over claimant’s work product to establish her status as its employee. Claimant was paid at a set hourly wage, entitled to reimbursement for approved travel and expenses and provided a cellular phone to test Fox’s products … . The project team leaders — who were employees — educated her regarding the product, delegated specific writing or editing tasks, provided direction and set completion deadlines. Claimant regularly reviewed her work progress with the project manager, received ongoing feedback and made necessary revisions and adjustments … . She was also required to come to Fox’s office for meetings and reviews of her copy. The fact that the parties’ agreement designated claimant as a contractor is not dispositive … . Matter of Eckert (Fox Mobile Distrib. LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08489, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

/

Massage Therapist Was Employee

The Third Department determined claimant massage therapist was an employee of Addison Street Spa and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, there is evidence in the record that Addison set the prices for the massages and the percentage of which claimant was paid, scheduled its clients pursuant to claimant’s weekly schedule, collected the fees from the clients and fielded any complaints. Addison required claimant to sign an agreement that she would not solicit, divert or take away any of Addison’s clients during the term of the agreement and for one year after claimant stopped providing massages at the spa. Addison provided the room, equipment and supplies and required claimant to arrive 30 minutes before the scheduled massage time and to maintain professional attire… . Matter of Fatone (Addison St. Spa, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08488, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

/

Musician Was Employee

The Third Department determined claimant, a musician who accompanied the Young People’s Chorus of New York (YPCNY) was an employee of YPCNY and therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits:

Here, YPCNY provided claimant with the date, time and place for the concerts, the rehearsal times and the music to be performed. Claimant was paid a set rate of between $250 and $600 per concert and YPCNY paid his travel expenses. YPCNY would inform claimant of the required dress code for the concerts and claimant was required to inform YPCNY if he was going to be late or absent. YPCNY’s president was the musical conductor at the concerts and was responsible for handling complaints about the musicians. While there is other evidence in the record that would support a different result, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that YPCNY exercised sufficient control over the services provided by the musicians to establish an employment relationship … . Matter of North (Young People’s Chorus of N.Y.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08486, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

/

Pyrotechnician Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined a pyrotechnician who worked for a company (PEI) which puts on fireworks displays was not an employee and was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, claimant did not submit a resume or employment application and did not undergo a job interview, but was retained by PEI through his contact with a lead technician and worked on PEI’s displays intermittently over a five-year period. PEI relied on lead technicians, who were independent contractors, to oversee the production of the fireworks displays and they directed and supervised the pyrotechnicians involved in a particular project. Claimant’s duties as a pyrotechnician included picking up the fireworks supplies, setting up the displays, igniting the fireworks, breaking down the displays and cleaning up. PEI did not attend the fireworks displays, but limited its activities to securing the sponsors, designing the shows and providing the fireworks and other necessary equipment. The lead technicians negotiated the price for production services with PEI and submitted invoices instructing PEI how much to pay the pyrotechnicans involved. PEI solicited assignments one at a time and the lead technicians and pyrotechnicians were free to refuse assignments and work for competitors. Although PEI offered to provide training, it was training that was required by regulatory agencies and could be obtained elsewhere. Furthermore, the lead technicians and pyrotechnicans did not wear clothing or other attire identifying them with PEI, but instead wore T-shirts designating them as “staff” that were required by law. Under the circumstances presented, the indicia of control necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship between PEI and the pyrotechnicans, like claimant, is clearly lacking .. . .  Matter of Franco (Pyro Eng’g Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08483, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

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