You are here: / Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted to Prove Identity and Intent—There...

Search Results

/ ,

Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted to Prove Identity and Intent—There Was No Unique Modus Operandi Which Would Prove Identity and Intent Could Be Inferred from the Commission of the Acts Charged

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions because the trial court allowed evidence of prior uncharged crimes to provide identity and intent.  The Second Department explained that the crimes did not have a unique modus operandi which could demonstrate the identity of the perpetrator, and the intent to commit the crime (burglary) could readily be inferred from the commission of the acts charged:

Evidence of another crime committed by the defendant, not charged in the indictment, is not admissible if it tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged and cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case … . However, where the proffered evidence is relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes … . Thus, evidence of other crimes may be admitted to show, among other things, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan, or the identity of the guilty party … . Here, the County Court granted the People’s application to admit the subject evidence to establish the defendant’s identity through a unique modus operandi and to establish the defendant’s intent.

The identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” … . Although identity was at issue in this case …, the People failed to identify any distinctive modus operandi relevant to proving the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. In order to identify the defendant by a distinctive modus operandi, “it is not sufficient to show that he has committed similar acts if the method used is not uncommon,” as such a showing “would be of little probative value in determining whether he committed the crimes charged, and the prejudice would be obvious” … . * * *

Nor was the subject evidence properly admitted under the intent exception to the Molineux rule. Evidence of prior misconduct to prove intent is unnecessary where intent may be easily inferred from the commission of the act itself … . Under the circumstances here, the defendant’s intent could be easily inferred from his acts alone … . Moreover, the defendant did not contest the element of intent before the jury, but rather, denied that he was the person who attempted the burglaries … . The evidence therefore was improperly ruled admissible. People v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07003, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

/ ,

Questions of Fact Raised About Fairness of Facially Valid Prenuptial Agreement

The Second Department determined questions of fact had been raised by defendant-wife about the fairness of a facially valid prenuptial agreement, primarily because of the absence of financial disclosure by the husband and the limited communication (at the time the agreement was executed) between the wife and the wife’s attorney (who had been hired by the husband). The court further determined that Supreme Court should not have denied the branches of the wife’s motion asking for pendente lite maintenance and counsel fees, which were not mentioned in, and therefore not precluded by, the prenuptial agreement:

An agreement between spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of unconscionability, or fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct … . “An unconscionable bargain is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the agreement, which appeared fair on its face and set forth express representations stating that, among other things, it was not a product of fraud or duress, each party had made full disclosure to the other and was represented by independent counsel, and they had fully discussed and understood its terms … .

In opposition, the defendant raised triable issues of fact with regard to, inter alia, the fairness of the agreement, the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the agreement, and the absence of any meaningful financial disclosure by the plaintiff … . McKenna v McKenna, 2014 NY Slip Op 06951, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

/

Deliberately-Caused Collision Was Not An Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Driver Who Caused the Collision—However the Collision Was an Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Victim of the Deliberate Act—Therefore the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement In the Victim’s Policy Kicked In

The Second Department determined a collision caused by the deliberate act of one driver, Demoliere, was an “accident” for purposes of uninsured motorist endorsement of the policy held by the driver killed by the Demoliere’s deliberate act. The incident was not an accident from the standpoint of Demoliere, and that Demoliere’s insurer was therefore off the hook.  However, from the standpoint of the victim of the deliberate act, the incident was an accident covered by the uninsured motorist endorsement in the victim’s policy:

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Langan (16 NY3d 349), the Court of Appeals held that, for the purposes of an uninsured motorist endorsement, when an occurrence is “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen,” from the insured’s perspective, it qualifies as an “accident” (id. at 355 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, from the decedent’s perspective, her collision with Demoliere’s vehicle was unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. Therefore, the occurrence constituted an “accident” within the meaning of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the decedent’s policy … . Matter of Utica Mut Ins Co v Burrous, 2014 NY Slip Op 06986, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

/

Defendant Failed to Demonstrate the Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (a Ramp Outside a Building) Was Open and Obvious as a Matter of Law—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The defendant argued the cause of the fall, a ramp outside the defendant’s building, was open and obvious.  The plaintiff alleged the area was not properly lit and the ramp could not be seen:

At about 5:30 p.m. on December 4, 2008, the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he tripped and fell over a ramp outside a building owned by the defendant. The injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, it was completely dark. He further testified that, as he was walking through the defendant’s parking lot, he did not see the ramp because its color blended into that of the surrounding pavement and because the parking lot was inadequately lit.

A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe manner to prevent foreseeable injuries … . A landlord, however, has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . To demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case, the defendant must establish that it maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create a dangerous or defective condition on the property or have either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition for a sufficient length of time to remedy it … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious … . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific …, and cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances … . Baron v 305-323- E Shore Rd Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06932, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

/ , ,

Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Defendant City’s Assertion It Did Not Have Sufficient Time to Remove Snow and Ice from a Sidewalk

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant city in a slip and fall case.  The city argued that it did not have sufficient time to address the snow and ice on the sidewalk, and submitted meterological data without an expert affidavit.  The First Department determined the absence of an expert affidavit precluded summary judgment:

“Summary judgment in a snow or ice case is proper where a defendant demonstrates, through climatological data and expert opinion, that the weather conditions would preclude the existence of snow or ice at the time of the accident” … . Accordingly, because it failed to offer an expert opinion, in addition to the meteorological records, the City’s motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers in opposition … . While, as the dissent notes, no expert affidavit was required by this Court in Daley v Janel Tower L.P. (89 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2011]), it is worth noting that there it was hardly needed.  it is worth noting that there it was hardly needed. That is because in Daley “the climatological reports showed that it last snowed more than one week prior to plaintiff’s fall and that during the three-day period prior to plaintiff’s fall, temperatures remained well above freezing” (89 AD3d at 409). Here, by contrast, the climatological reports showed that, except for a few hours of above-freezing temperatures and non-freezing rain, temperatures generally remained below freezing for the entire period between the December 19 storm and the accident four days later. Plaintiff’s expert opined that these conditions were suitable for the ice that formed as a result of the initial storm to remain, but not for the formation of new ice, which the City would have had insufficient time to clear. Without an expert to interpret the meteorological record in a way that would disprove this theory, the City failed to establish a right to judgment as a matter of law. Rodriguez v Woods, 2014 NY Slip Op 06887, 1st Dept 10-14-14

 

/

Election Law Which Restricts Where Certain Candidates’ Names May Appear on the Ballot (Election Law 7-104 (4) (c)) Declared Constitutional

The Third Department determined that Election Law 7-104 (4) (c) was not unconstitutional as applied to petitioners, candidates for state office nominated by the Stop Common Core Party:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking a declaration that Election Law § 7-104 (4) (c) is unconstitutional as applied to them because it violates their rights to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Although petitioners did not dispute that respondents complied with section 7-104 (4) (c), they asserted that strict enforcement of that provision creates a patch-worked and illogical ballot that promotes voter confusion, makes it more difficult for Stop Common Core Party supporters to locate petitioners, and impinges upon petitioners’ right to associate and express themselves as a party slate of candidates who share common ideals. Petitioners further sought to compel respondents to place their names on the Stop Common Core Party line … . * * *

[In overruling the line of cases relied upon by the petitioners, the] Court [of Appeals] …  stated that the prior version of the statute — which is not meaningfully distinct from the present version before us (see Election Law former § 248) — “is clear and constitutional” … . Addressing its prior cases … which found a strict application of the statute to be unfair and prejudicial in cases similar to this one, the Court stated that “‘[u]nfair and prejudicial’ must mean something beyond detriment or inconvenience since the Legislature itself has said that fairness calls for the prohibition of a third column” to candidates nominated by independent bodies when those candidates already appear on the ballot as the nominees of two or more major parties (Matter of Battista v Power, 16 NY2d at 201). The Court clarified that “[t]he kind of unfairness and prejudice which would make the section unconstitutional as to a particular group must be of such character as to deprive that group of proper representation on the voting machine or otherwise make it practically impossible for the members of that group to vote as such” (id.).

In our view, Matter of Battista v Power (supra) is controlling, particularly after the Court of Appeals expressly indicated that it had overruled the last of the prior, inconsistent line of cases …. Under Battista, Election Law § 7-104 (4) (c) is not unconstitutional as applied to petitioners—their names appear twice on the ballot in separate major party lines and the ballot further designates them as candidates of the Stop Common Core Party, albeit in a less prominent fashion than they seek … . Matter of Cahill v Kellner, 2014 NY Slip Op 06886, 3rd Dept 10-10-14

 

/

Acknowledgment of Paternity by Mother’s Husband Did Not Preclude Biological Father’s Petition to Be Declared the Father of the Child

The Second Department reversed Family Court, finding that the mother’s husband’s acknowledgment of paternity was not a bar to the biological father’s petition to be declared the father of the child:

The subject child was born to the mother on July 11, 2007. The mother was unmarried at the time. On February 17, 2009, the mother married nonparty Gaston R. In or around September 2011, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking to be declared the father of the subject child. An existing acknowledgment of paternity dated February 20, 2009, named Gaston R., not the petitioner, as the father of the subject child. The mother and Gaston R. do not dispute that the petitioner is the biological father of the subject child. The Family Court dismissed the paternity petition without a hearing on the basis that the petitioner could not establish fraud as required by Family Court Act § 516 to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity. We reverse.

The Family Court erred in treating the petition as one to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity. The petition sought to declare the petitioner the father of the child (see Family Ct Act § 524). A prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment … . Matter of Thomas T, 2014 NY Slip Op 06834, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and Setting Aside a Verdict As Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.  The facts were such that the jury could have found fault on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant, but the jury could not have found the defendant was free from fault.  Therefore, the trial court should not have directed a verdict for the plaintiff, but rather should have found the verdict against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.  The Second Department explained the different criteria for setting aside a verdict as a matter of law and setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence:

CPLR 4404(a) provides, in relevant part, that: “[a]fter a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” (CPLR 4404[a]). The Court of Appeals has recognized that the setting aside of a jury verdict as a matter of law and the setting aside of a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence involve two inquiries and two different standards … . For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must find that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead . . . to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . However, “[w]hether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . ” When a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view'” … . “A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . Thus, rationality is the touchstone for legal sufficiency, while fair interpretation is the criterion for weight of the evidence … . Where a court makes a finding that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it “leads to a directed verdict terminating the action without resubmission of the case to a jury” … . Where a court finds that a jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it grants a new trial … . Ramirez v Mezzacappa, 2014 NY Slip Op 06808, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/

New York’s Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Applies to Issues Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Proceeding on the Merits, Even Where Prior Proceeding Was Wrongly Decided

In an action concerning whether plaintiff owned an undivided half interest in property which had been encumbered by a mortgage without plaintiff’s participation, the Second Department determined the complaint was properly dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata because the issues had not been raised in a prior proceeding (even though the issues may have been wrongly decided in that proceeding).  The court explained the relevant legal principles, including New York’s transactional approach to res judicata:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the doctrine of res judicata precluded the plaintiff from asserting her current claims … . ” Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation'” … . Under New York’s transactional approach to res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . “The rationale for the doctrine is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim should not be allowed to do so again; allowing relitigation would undermine the interest of the community and the litigants in finality” … . Indeed, “[t]he policy against relitigation of adjudicated disputes is strong enough generally to bar a second action even where further investigation of the law or facts indicates that the controversy has been erroneously decided, whether due to oversight by the parties or error by the courts” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the … defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The … defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the plaintiff’s claims against them arose from the same operative facts and concerned the same property as the claim she raised against the … defendants in the 2007 action, which was decided on the merits. Moreover, the … defendants demonstrated that all of the claims asserted against them in this action were raised or could have been raised in the 2007 action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Myers v Myers, 2014 NY Slip Op 06805, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/ ,

Prosecution Failed to Prove the Requisite Intent and Materiality in a Perjury Case

In reversing defendant’s (Hadid’s) conviction for perjury, the Second Department determined there was insufficient evidence defendant testified with the requisite intent and there was insufficient evidence the allegedly perjurious statement was “material.” The alleged perjury was testimony by the defendant at the trial of one Kargu. The decision illustrates the stringent proof requirement in a perjury case:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution … , we find that it was legally insufficient to establish Hadid’s guilt of perjury in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt … . As a matter of law, the evidence failed to establish that Hadid had made a false statement under oath. To prove falsity, the prosecution must show that the witness was intentionally, rather than mistakenly, testifying falsely … . To determine intent, the court will look at whether the statement at issue related to a memorable fact, the significance of the event at the time it occurred, the line of inquiry of the examiner, and whether a fact was deliberately concealed if concealment is alleged … . * * *

The People’s also failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Hadid’s statements were material to the Kargu trial … . ” [T]he test of materiality is whether the false testimony was capable of influencing the tribunal on the issue before it'” … .

Contrary to the prosecution’s contention, neither Hadid’s statements at trial nor his credibility were material to Kargu’s guilt or nonguilt … . People v Hadid, 2014 NY Slip Op 06842, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

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