You are here: / Suppressed Statement Improperly Allowed to Be Used to Impeach Defendant—Defendant...

Search Results

/ ,

Suppressed Statement Improperly Allowed to Be Used to Impeach Defendant—Defendant Did Not Open the Door for Use of the Statement by Contradicting It On Direct

The Fourth Department determined statements made by the defendant, which had been suppressed, were improperly admitted to impeach the defendant (harmless error however):

…Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach him with the statement that he made to State University police officers. That statement had been suppressed, and defendant did not open the door to its use for impeachment by giving testimony contrary to the statement during his direct examination… . People v Blair, 2014 NY Slip Op 06730, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ ,

“Door-Opening Rule” Applied to Allow Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence/Jury-Note Error Not Preserved

The Fourth Department determined evidence of a phone conversation which was otherwise inadmissible was properly admitted to rebut a “misleading impression” created by the defendant under the “door-opening rule.”  In addition the court held that the failure to notify defense counsel of the contents of a jury note, although error, was not preserved for appeal:

Under the “door-opening” rule …, otherwise inadmissible evidence, such as the telephone conversation at issue here, may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of rebutting a “misleading impression” created by the defendant … . Here, defendant was attempting to evoke the jury’s sympathy by testifying about her remorse and anguish over the victim’s death. Specifically, defendant testified that, upon learning of the victim’s death, she “started flipping out,” “bouncing my head off walls,” “screaming,” and “going nuts.” She further testified that she “didn’t want to live,” “refused to eat,” and was “on suicide watch.” We conclude that the court properly permitted the People to introduce the telephone conversation in evidence to rebut defendant’s testimony of remorse and anguish … . * * *

Defendant contends in the supplemental brief submitted by appellate counsel with leave of this Court that the court failed to apprise her of a jury note and that such a failure constitutes a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of the judgment, even if unpreserved … . We reject defendant’s contention that preservation was not required. Here … “the record does not indicate that the court gave defense counsel notice of the contents of the note outside the presence of the jury, but it establishes that the court read the note verbatim before the jury, defense counsel, and defendant. Defense counsel raised no objection” … . Under such circumstances, defendant was required to preserve the alleged error by objection … . We decline to exercise our power to address defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Stoutenger, 2014 NY Slip Op 06688, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ ,

Police Did Not Demonstrate They Had a “Founded Suspicion Criminality Was Afoot” Before Asking For and Receiving Defendant’s Permission to Search His Car

The Fourth Department determined the police failed to demonstrate they had a “founded suspicion that criminality was afoot” when they asked defendant for permission to search his car.  The marijuana and firearm found in the search should have been suppressed:

The law is well settled that the police may not ask an occupant of a lawfully stopped vehicle if he or she has any weapons unless they have a founded suspicion that criminality is afoot … . It is equally well settled that the police may not ask for consent to search a vehicle absent that same degree of suspicion … . Here, as both defendant and the People recognize, the legality of the police conduct turns on whether the officer who engaged defendant at the side of his vehicle smelled or observed marihuana in the vehicle before asking defendant whether he had any guns or drugs and before asking for consent to search. We conclude that there is no basis in the record to support the court’s finding that the officers smelled marihuana as soon as they approached the vehicle.  People v Wideman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06698, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ ,

Warrantless Cell Phone Search Required Suppression and a New Trial

The First Department ordered a new trial because the police searched defendant’s phone without a warrant and used photos found on the phone as the basis for a search warrant:

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress photographs obtained from his cell phone. After the police arrested defendant and seized his phone, an officer looked through it without a warrant, and found two photos stored on the phone that depicted a pistol resembling the pistol recovered in this case. It was not disputed that the search of defendant’s cell phone was unlawful. Moreover, a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds that a cell phone is not a proper subject of a warrantless search incident to arrest … .

After finding the photos on the phone, the same officer averred in an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant, which specifically sought to search photographs among other things on the phone, that there was reasonable cause to believe that evidence concerning defendant’s possession of a firearm existed on defendant’s phone. This evidence demonstrated that the “decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what [the police] had seen during the initial entry” … . Rather than applying for a warrant on the basis of mere probable cause, the officer “achieve[d] certain cause by conducting an unlawful confirmatory search,” which “undermines the very purpose of the warrant requirement and cannot be tolerated” … . Accordingly, even if there were independent probable cause for the warrant, it would not immunize the initial warrantless search, or permit the subsequently-granted warrant to render the photos admissible … . Nor may the inevitable discovery doctrine be applied to this evidence; the exception does not apply where “the evidence sought to be suppressed is the very evidence obtained in the illegal search” … . People v Marinez, 2014 NY Slip Op 06668, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

/

Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply

The First Department determined injury from a stone block which fell from a pallet was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) because it was not demonstrated the incident resulted from the failure of a safety device:

The motion court properly granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Section 240(1) does not apply automatically every time a worker is injured by a falling object … . Rather, the “decisive question is whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . The worker must establish that the object fell because of the inadequacy or absence of a safety device of the kind contemplated by the statute … . In order for something to be deemed a safety device under the statute, it must have been put in place “as to give proper protection” for the worker (§ 240[1]).

Here, we conclude that plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the absence or inadequacy of the kind of safety device enumerated in the statute … . Plaintiff does not contend that the block itself was inadequately secured. Instead, plaintiff argues that § 240(1) is applicable because his injuries were caused by defendants’ failure to provide an adequate safety device to hold the plastic tarp in place. Specifically, plaintiff maintains that the plastic tarp was inadequately secured because, if it had been properly secured, such as with ropes and stakes, plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred.

Plaintiff’s argument is unconvincing. The plastic tarp was not an object that needed to be secured for the purposes of § 240(1)…, nor is there any indication that the tarp caused plaintiff’s injuries. Guallpa v Leon D DeMatteis Constr Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06666, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

/

Labor Law 241(6) Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Although Claimant Did Not Perform “Labor-Intense Aspects of the Project” His Finance-Related Job Entailed On-Site Inspections

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) claim should not have been dismissed.  Although plaintiff did not perform labor, his finance-related job required that he inspect the work site.  Plaintiff tripped and fell while doing an inspection:

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim was improperly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was not covered under the statute. Plaintiff testified that he was an onsite project manager, employed by one of multiple general contractors on the subject construction project, whose job pertained to financial issues such as billing of subcontractors and revenue projections for the project. He testified that he tripped and fell in a vestibule he was walking through, intending to conduct a visual inspection of a condition alleged … to support a back charge for “additional work,” in order to determine whether this claim was substantiated. Thus, plaintiff was not merely working in a building that happened to be under construction … . Rather, his job duties, including the inspection he was conducting at the time of the accident, were contemporaneous with and related to ongoing work on the construction project … . Thus, plaintiff was covered under the statute even though he did not perform the “labor-intense aspects of the project” … .  DeSimone v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 06667, 1st Dept 10-2-14

 

/

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Deemed a Compensable Consequential Injury Stemming from a Prior Physical Injury

The Third Department affirmed the board’s finding that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits based in part upon posttraumatic stress disorder.  Claimant worked in a facility which housed juveniles who had committed the equivalent of felonies. Claimant was injured trying to control an unruly resident.  Thereafter, claimant, as part of his job, monitored video feeds from the facility and he often observed unruly behavior which reminded him of the incident in which he was injured:

Whether a subsequent disability arose consequentially from an existing compensable injury is a factual question for resolution by the Board, and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence” … . A consequential injury, in turn, is one that “result[s] directly and naturally from claimant’s prior injuries and the disability thereby produced” … . Claimant here testified that he was assigned to monitor video feeds of the facility upon his return to work from his back injury, work that required him to constantly observe the unruly behavior of the residents and reminded him of the initial incident and his injuries. His injuries left him feeling helpless to assist the coworkers he observed dealing with the residents, and he ultimately sought medical assistance after he became enraged and blacked out due to watching numerous incidents where other employees required aid. Claimant was thereafter diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, accompanied by anxiety and depression, and his treating psychologist stated in no uncertain terms that those conditions flowed from the May 2010 incident and the injuries he sustained therein. The Board credited the psychologist’s factually specific opinion … , and the employer submitted no medical evidence to rebut it. Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination … . Matter of Dowdell v Office of Family & Children Servs., 2014 NY Slip Op 06626, 3rd Dept 10-2-14

 

/

Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful Misrepresentation” Even If “Unintentional”

The Third Department determined claimant was properly denied benefits because of his self-employment activities which he did not report.  The court noted that the certification that claimant was not working supports the finding that he made a “willful misrepresentation even if it was unintentional:”

Whether a claimant is totally unemployed is a factual issue for the Board to decide, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . A claimant who performs activities on behalf of an ongoing business may not be considered totally unemployed, even if such activities are minimal or the business is not profitable, if he or she stands to benefit financially from its continued operation … . Here, claimant incorporated the business, opened a business checking account, created a business logo, started developing a business website, distributed business cards, attended seminars and trade shows and had apparel samples made by overseas manufacturers, all in furtherance of establishing a lucrative business. Notwithstanding the fact that claimant was not receiving income from the business, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that he was not totally unemployed … . Furthermore, given that claimant read the provisions of the unemployment insurance handbook relating to self-employment, but represented that he was not working when certifying for benefits, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that he made a willful misrepresentation — even if it was unintentional … . Matter of Romero…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06634, 3rd Dept 10-2-14

 

/ ,

Police Accident Report Did Not Notify City of Negligence on the Part of the City—Petition to Serve Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied

In affirming the denial of a petition to serve a late notice of claim, the Second Department noted that, although a police accident report was generated, the report did not provide notice of any negligence on the part of the city:

The petitioner contends that the City acquired such knowledge by virtue of a police accident report made by a police officer at the scene of the accident. However, for a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation … . Here, the police accident report did not provide the City with actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim that the City was negligent in the happening of the subject accident or that the petitioner sustained any injuries as a result of the City’s alleged negligence … . Kuterman v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 06560, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

/ , , ,

The Kinds of Damages Recoverable in a Property-Damage Action Stemming from Allegedly Defective Doors and Windows Explained in Some Depth—Economic Loss Rule Re: Strict Products Liability and Negligence—Consequential and Special Damages Re: Contract—When an Issue Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal Explained

In an action stemming from allegedly defective windows and doors which allowed the intrusion of water, the Second Department sorted out the interplay between tort claims and contract claims and the types of damages recoverable under each legal theory.  Among the issues discussed in some depth: the economic loss rule re: strict products liability and negligence; and consequential and special damages re: contract.  The court noted that the “economic loss rule” issue was raised for the first time on appeal and then explained why it still could consider the argument:

…[W]e note that the appellant did not raise before the Supreme Court its contention that the causes of action to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability insofar as asserted against it are barred by the economic loss rule. Nevertheless, this is a purely legal argument that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had it been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Thus, the issue may be considered by this Court even though it is being raised for the first time on appeal… .

“The economic loss rule provides that tort recovery in strict products liability and negligence against a manufacturer is not available to a downstream purchaser where the claimed losses flow from damage to the property that is the subject of the contract and personal injury is not alleged or at issue” … . The rule is applicable to economic losses to the product itself as well as consequential damages resulting from the defect … . Therefore, when a plaintiff seeks to recover damages for purely economic loss related to the failure or malfunction of a product, such as the cost of replacing or retrofitting the product, or for damage to the product itself, the plaintiff may not seek recovery in tort against the manufacturer or the distributor of the product, but is limited to a recovery sounding in breach of contract or breach of warranty … .

Here, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that it sustained economic losses generated by the repair and replacement of the glass doors and windows of a building due to the failure of such doors and windows to properly prevent water intrusion. The fabrication and/or installation of those doors and windows were the subject of its agreement with the appellant. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to recover losses generated by the repair and replacement of these doors and windows pursuant to causes of action sounding in negligence or strict products liability, such causes of action are prohibited by the economic loss rule. …

However, the plaintiff also claims that the intrusion of water caused by the defective windows and doors resulted in injury to other structural elements of the building, such as flooring and walls. These losses constitute damage to “other property” that was not the subject of the parties’ agreement and, accordingly, support a valid tort cause of action … . We note that, while the other structural elements of the building may have been damaged as a consequence of the infiltration of water through allegedly defective windows and doors, such losses do not constitute “consequential damages,” also known as “special damages,” as that term is used in contract law. Consequential or special damages usually refer to loss of expected profits or economic opportunity caused by a breach of contract … . ). Although the plaintiff may not recover such traditional consequential contract damages pursuant to a tort cause of action, the complaint does state causes of action against the appellant to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability to the extent that those causes of action seek to recover damages for injury to structural elements of the building other than the allegedly defective windows and doors themselves, which were the subject of the parties’ contract… . 126 Newton St LLC v Allbrand Commercial Windows and Doors Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06563, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

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