You are here: / Legal Underpinning of the “Fellow Officer” Rule Explained

Search Results

/ ,

Legal Underpinning of the “Fellow Officer” Rule Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.  The defendant’s arrest was based upon a transmission to the arresting officers but the prosecution did not introduce any evidence of the identity of the transmitting officer. The court offered an in-depth explanation of the “fellow officer” rule:

“Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as a result of communication with’ a fellow officer . . . in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest” … . Probable cause exists when “an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” … . At a suppression hearing, the prosecution has the burden of establishing that the officer who transmitted the information had probable cause … .

The fellow officer rule is a “straightforward application” of the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test … , which New York courts use to assess whether hearsay information is sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest or the issuance of a warrant … . The Aguilar-Spinelli test first requires the suppression court to assess whether the information on which the police have acted is reliable … . The second part of the Aguilar-Spinelli test evaluates whether the informant had an adequate “basis of knowledge” for the information supplied… . Under the fellow officer rule, “[i]nformation received from another police officer is presumptively reliable” … . The People still, however, must satisfy the second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test: how the transmitting officer acquired that information.

Here, under the fellow officer rule, the arresting officers were entitled to presume that the information they received from an undercover officer was reliable. Moreover, under the circumstances of this buy and bust operation, it is clear that the transmitting officer, whether it was the ghost undercover officer or the primary undercover officer, had an adequate basis of knowledge for the information transmitted, either from direct participation in the transaction or observation of it. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the undercover officer who made the transmission was not required to delineate the defendant’s exact role in the transaction in order to establish probable cause for his arrest … . People v Oglesby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06845, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/

Conviction for Which an Illegal Sentence Was Imposed Can Not Serve as the Basis for a Second-Felony-Offender Adjudication

The Second Department determined that a prior conviction could not serve as the basis of defendant’s second-felony-offender adjudication.  The 1993 conviction was subject to an illegal sentence which was not remedied until after the commission of the instant offenses:

The defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender was improper. The predicate for this adjudication was a 1993 conviction for which, the parties agree, an illegal sentence was imposed. A lawful sentence on that conviction was not imposed until after the instant crimes were committed. The relevant statute provides, however, that for purposes of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction, the sentence upon such prior conviction “must have been imposed before commission of the present felony” (Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][ii]). Thus, the 1993 matter may not serve as a predicate felony conviction in the instant case (see Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][ii]…). We reach this determination notwithstanding the fact that the defendant did not move to set aside his sentence in the 1993 matter until after the sentence in the instant case was imposed, as “multiple offender status is defined by the plain statutory language, which courts are not free to disregard” at will … . People v Esquiled, 2014 NY Slip Op 06839, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/

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

 

/ , , , ,

The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent Stabilization Law, Does Not Allow “Luxury Deregulation” After the Expiration of J-51 Tax Benefits

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, determined that the relevant provision of the NYC Rent and Rehabilitation Act (Rent Control Law or RCL) could not be interpreted to allow “luxury deregulation” of a rent-controlled apartment upon the expiration of “J-51” tax benefits.  “Luxury deregulation” refers to the removal of rent controls where the tenant can afford to pay market rates. The opinion focused upon the wording of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) versus the wording of the Rent Control Law (RCL) .  The RSL specifically allows the owner of an apartment to apply for luxury deregulation upon the expiration of the J-51 tax benefits, while the RCL (the controlling regulation here) does not.  The opinion includes a discussion of court-review of an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute where specialized knowledge is not involved, and statutory-interpretation criteria:

At the outset, we note that the question before us turns purely on statutory interpretation. As such, we need not defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes in question, as we are not called upon “to interpret a statute where specialized knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or . . . an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom’ is at stake” … . * * *

The owner argues that the rationale of [the RSL] should also apply to apartments subject to rent control, because, inter alia, to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the purpose of the luxury deregulation law, which attempted to “restore some rationality to a system which provides the bulk of its benefits to high income tenants” … . We are not unmindful that the legislative history indicates a preference not to have people who can easily afford market value rental property inhabit rent-regulated housing. However, this history does not offer sufficient evidence to alter the unambiguous language of Administrative Code § 26-403(e)(2)(j). To do so would require us to import new language into the RCL and “give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” … . Indeed, “where the language of a statute is clear, there is little room to add to or take away from that meaning'” … . If the application of such long-established principles of statutory construction produces “an undesirable result, the problem is one to be addressed by the Legislature” … . Matter of RAM I LLC v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2014 NY Slip Op 06784, 1st Dept 10-7-14

 

/ , ,

Monetary Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney and Striking of Complaint Deemed Appropriate Where Discovery Delays Unexplained

The Fourth Department determined a $2090.00 sanction against plaintiff’s attorney and the striking of the complaint in a slip and fall case were appropriate based upon plaintiff’s discovery delays:

…[W]e conclude that, under the circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on plaintiff’s attorney for what the court characterized as “excessive and inexcusable delay” in providing discovery responses … . …[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in striking the complaint and dismissing [the action]. “[T]he type and degree of sanction [for a discovery violation] will be left to the discretionary authority of the trial court which will remain undisturbed absent an abuse thereof” … . “While the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of [the court’s] discretion . . . , striking a pleading is appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” … . Here, the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing willful, contumacious or bad faith conduct by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to offer a reasonable excuse … . Allen v Wal-mart Stores Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06695, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ , , ,

“Error In Judgment” Jury Instruction Properly Given/Defense Verdict Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

In reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined the “error in judgment” jury instruction was properly given and the defense verdict should not have been set aside as against the weight of the evidence:

We conclude that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict in favor of Dr. LaRussa and Associates on the ground that it should not have given an error in judgment charge to the jury with respect to Dr. LaRussa’s alleged malpractice in failing to order and administer dual antibiotic prophylaxis for the cesarean section, and on the alternative ground that the verdict in favor of Dr. LaRussa was against the weight of the evidence. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Based upon Dr. LaRussa’s testimony that he exercised [*2]his professional judgment in choosing between acceptable alternatives, along with expert testimony that there were such acceptable alternatives, we conclude that the court properly gave an error in judgment charge … . There was also evidence that Dr. LaRussa considered and chose between medically acceptable treatment alternatives at plaintiff’s postoperative office visit, and thus the charge was also appropriately given with respect to his postoperative care of plaintiff … . Furthermore, we conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiff[s] is not so great that the verdict [finding that Dr. LaRussa was not negligent] could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . Beebe v St Joseph’s Hosp Health Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 06711, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiffs Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 USC 1988—Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and found that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 USC 1988.

Plaintiffs had brought an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding alleging that they had been improperly removed by the city from an approved list of certified lead inspectors. The plaintiffs prevailed and were returned to the list.  Although the Article 78/declaratory judgment determination was made on state grounds, a federal “denial of due process” claim had also been made.  The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the award of attorney’s fees in this context:

The governing statute, 42 USC § 1988 (b), provides that, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . .” “Although some courts have held, as did the court in this case, that the decision whether to grant an award is entirely discretionary . . . this is incorrect . . . [T]he prevailing party ordinarily should recover reasonable fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust’ ” … . Where, as here, “relief is sought on both State and Federal grounds, but nevertheless awarded on State grounds only,” attorney’s fees may be awarded if a constitutional question is involved and such question is “substantial and arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts as the State claim” … . “The threshold for establishing substantiality of a Federal claim is minimal: the claim must not be wholly insubstantial,’ obviously frivolous’ or obviously without merit’ “… . Cerberus Props LLC v Kirkmire, 2014 NY Slip Op 06723, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/

Question Posed by the Prosecutor to Prospective Black Jurors About Whether They Felt Police Officers Unfairly Target Members of the Minority Community Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for excluding black jurors was not race-neutral.  The prosecutor asked the jurors whether they felt that police officers unfairly target members of the minority community:

Pursuant to Batson and its progeny, “the party claiming discriminatory use of peremptories must first make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more [prospective] jurors for an impermissible reason . . . Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory—–step two … The third step of the Batson inquiry requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all of the facts and circumstances presented” … . * * *

With respect to step two of the analysis, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of setting forth a “race-neutral reason” for striking the challenged prospective jurors … . “A race-neutral reason naturally means an explanation based on something other than the race of the [prospective] juror’ ” …, and must be “related to the particular case to be tried” … . Although the burden on the nonmoving party at this stage of the analysis is relatively minimal, “[a] prosecutor’s explanation may not be sustained where discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation” … .

Here, the People excluded the two prospective jurors at issue solely based upon their answers to a race-based question, i.e., whether they believed that police officers “unfairly target members of the minority community” … . Notably, that question was unrelated to the facts of this case, which does not involve any allegation of racial profiling . We are unpersuaded by the People’s assertion that the question was “designed to ensure that the jurors would not automatically accept or reject police testimony.”  People v Mallory, 2014 NY Slip Op 06728, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ ,

Out-of-Court Statements by Defendant and Unknown Woman with Whom Defendant Spoke on the Phone from Jail Admissible

The Fourth Department determined that out-of-court statements made by the defendant in phone calls from jail and a statement made by an unknown woman defendant was talking to were admissible because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the recordings of two telephone calls he made from jail following his arrest. During the first call, defendant said to an unknown female, “Tell him [defendant’s father] what happened to my ID.” Defendant was referring to his claim that his jacket, containing his parole identification card, had been stolen from his father’s car. During the second call, an unknown female informed defendant that his father told the police that his car had not been running for “a long-ass time,” and in response defendant instructed the female to tell his father “not to mention” that the car was not running. We reject defendant’s contention that his own above-referenced statements constitute inadmissible hearsay. The statements in question were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted …; instead, they were offered to show that defendant appeared to be fashioning an innocent explanation for the fact that his parole identification card was found at the crime scene. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the statement made by the unknown female during the second call constituted inadmissible hearsay. In any event, that statement was admissible to put defendant’s responding statement into context by providing “necessary background information to the jury” … . People v Scarver, 2014 NY Slip Op 06713, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

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