You are here: / THE POLICE OBSERVED A GROUP OF PEOPLE CHASING THE DEFENDANT AND ESSENTIALLY...

Search Results

/ ,

THE POLICE OBSERVED A GROUP OF PEOPLE CHASING THE DEFENDANT AND ESSENTIALLY JOINED IN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES; THE WEAPON SEIZED IN THE STREET STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction (after trial) and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who participated in the foot chase and street stop of the defendant did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion.” The police (in civilian clothes) saw a group of people chasing the defendant and essentially simply joined in the chase without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. The seized firearm should have been suppressed:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the pursuit of the defendant, as the police lacked reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . Neither Hain’s [the officer’s] observation of the defendant running away from a “group of civilians” chasing him, nor the female voice saying “that’s him, he’s getting away, grab him,” without reference to any specific acts, were sufficient to confer reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to the defendant being the victim of criminal activity or having no connection to any criminal activity … . Hain acknowledged that “I wasn’t sure exactly what was going on at the time,” and that the group could have been chasing the defendant “for anything.” Further, Hain’s vague testimony that when the group caught up to the defendant, he observed the defendant and a female individual “engaged in some sort of physical altercation,” which he described as “tussling, pulling back and forth at each other,” was insufficient, absent any details, to satisfy the People’s burden of establishing reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Hain acknowledged that “I don’t know if [the defendant] was defending himself,” and he did not testify that the defendant ever struck the female individual or engaged in any conduct constituting an assault or other criminal activity. Therefore, it cannot be determined from Hain’s testimony elicited at the hearing whether the defendant was merely trying to pull away from the female individual to continue running away after she and the group caught up to him.

Thus, Hain’s observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Alberto, 2026 NY Slip Op 01976, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Here the police saw a group of people chasing the defendant and joined in without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. Therefore the street stop was not justified by “reasonable suspicion.”

 

/ , ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “UNDUE INFLUENCE” OBJECTION TO PROBATE OF A WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, noted that summary judgment is rarely appropriate where a party’s undue influence on the decedent is alleged as an objection to probate of a will:

… Surrogate’s Court should not have granted that branch of the petitioners’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the objection based on undue influence on the part of Theodos. “To invalidate an instrument on the ground of undue influence, there must be evidence that the influence exerted amounted to a moral coercion that restrained independent action and destroyed free agency or that, by importunity that could not be resisted, constrained a person to do that which was against his or her free will and desire, but which he or she was unable to refuse or too weak to resist” … . “In general, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “An inference of undue influence, requiring the beneficiary to explain the circumstances of the bequest, arises when a beneficiary under a will was in a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the testator and was involved in the drafting of the will” … . “The adequacy of the explanation presents a question of fact for the jury” … . The existence of a confidential relationship is also “ordinarily . . . a question of fact” … .

Here, the record reflects that Theodos was assisting in the management of the decedent’s finances in the years leading up to the execution of the will and that certain provisions of the will were communicated to the decedent’s attorney through Theodos. In addition, Theodos was named as one of the executors of the will and was also named as a beneficiary, receiving a bequest of $20,000. As such, an inference of undue influence arises … , and there remain triable issues of fact in that regard … . Matter of Gennarelli, 2026 NY Slip Op 01962, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the burden of proof for an “undue influence” objection to probate and why summary judgment is usually inappropriate in this context.​

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DELAYED SIX YEARS BEFORE RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AND FOUR YEARS BEFORE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE DEBT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED FOR THOSE PERIODS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that interest on the mortgage debt in this foreclosure action should have been tolled because plaintiff failed to explain a six-year delay in restoring the action to the active calendar and its four-year-delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s application to toll the accrual of interest on the note from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022. “‘A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … .. “‘Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require'” … . “‘In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party'” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to explain its six-year delay in moving to restore the action to the active calendar, and further failed to explain its four-year delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference after the action was restored to the active calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, since the defendant was prejudiced by these unexplained delays, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the note should have been tolled from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022 … . Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v McFarlane, 2026 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Foreclosure actions are equitable in nature. Here undue delays by the plaintiff warranted tolling the accrual of interest for more than ten years.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE UNSECURED LADDER MOVED SUDDENLY AND TILTED TO THE LEFT WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff testify the unsecured ladder moved suddenly and titled to the left:

… [T]he claimant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The claimant’s deposition testimony established that the unsecured ladder moved suddenly and tilted to the left, causing him to fall … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the claimant’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Bista v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 01936, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: A plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder was unsecured and moved suddenly can be sufficient to warrant summary judgment in a Labor Law 240(1) action.

 

​

/ , ,

AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CONFESSING TO THE MURDER FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the statement against penal interest made by a witness in a post-trial CPL article 440 hearing should have been admitted at trial. The witness essentially confessed to the shooting for which defendant was convicted. At the time of the trial, the witness was unavailable because he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge excluded the statement against penal interest on the ground that circumstances independent of the statement itself did not support the statement’s truthfulness and reliability :

… [W]e conclude, based on the circumstances of the witness’s CPL article 440 testimony and the trial record, from which that testimony was absent, that “there is ‘a reasonable possibility that the [testimony] might be true’ ” … . Initially, the witness’s description of the third party shooting at the window from the backyard when the light went on is consistent with the female victim’s testimony that she was shot immediately after she turned on the light and the physical evidence that the shots were fired through the rear window. The witness testified that the third party picked up a .38 firearm, which is consistent with the projectiles recovered from the shooting, from a nearby location just prior to the shooting. The witness’s description of running down the driveway with the third party immediately following the shots, across the street, and then over a backyard fence coincides with a female neighbor’s description in her trial testimony of two men jumping over her back fence. The testimony of a law enforcement witness also corroborated the witness’s account of the two prior robberies described by the witness during his CPL article 440 testimony. Further, there is no evidence that the witness had a familial or close relationship with defendant or other “obvious motive for [the witness] to falsely implicate himself” … .

In light of the more lenient standard applied to exculpatory statements, we conclude that the initial threshold of reliability is met, i.e., that there is a “reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01881, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for admission of a statement against penal interest.

 

/ , ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the hospital’s motion to strike allegations of lack of informed consent should have been granted. That cause of action was not identified in the complaint. Therefore plaintiffs could not use their bill of particulars to assert it:

We agree with the Hospital defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking, in effect, to strike the allegations of lack of informed consent from plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars to the Hospital defendants, and we modify the order accordingly. “[A] bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized . . . A bill of particulars may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . For those purposes, “[l]ack of informed consent is a distinct theory of medical malpractice liability rooted in a specific professional duty to reasonably inform and obtain consent from the patient,” and claims for traditional medical malpractice and lack of informed consent ” ‘comprise[ ] different elements’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he complaint is based solely on [traditional] medical malpractice and does not contain a separate cause of action for lack of informed consent” … and that a review of the allegations in the complaint does not support the conclusion that the distinct theory of lack of informed consent was ” ‘sufficiently pleaded to avoid surprise and prejudice to [the Hospital] defendants’ ” … . Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ complaint does not presently plead a cause of action for lack of informed consent, the allegations in plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars relating to lack of informed consent must be stricken … . Heather J. v Rochester Regional Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 01880, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Here the complaint did not allege a cause of action for lack of informed consent. Therefore references to lack of informed consent in the bill of particulars can be stricken.​

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS 33 YEARS OLD AND THE JURY OBSERVED HIM, THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVE HE WAS OVER 18 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIMES REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS; THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual act first degree, determined that, although defendant was in fact 33 years old, the People failed to prove that he was over 18 at the time of the crimes. The errors was not preserved. The appellate court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to consider the issue:

Here, two counts in the indictment include an age element that required the People to establish that defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the crimes in June 2020 … . Defendant was in fact 33 years old in June 2020, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during the trial in 2021, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of predatory sexual assault against a child under count 1 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the first degree under count 5 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: If being over 18 at the time of the crime is an element of the offense, the People must prove that element. Here the defendant was 33, but the failure to prove he was over 18 was reversible error. This error will be considered by an appellate court even where it has not been preserved for appeal.​

 

/ ,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS UNILATERALLY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have allowed the defendant and the codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges to jurors unilaterally:

… County Court erred in permitting the codefendant to unilaterally exercise peremptory challenges. … The court’s process of allowing defendant and codefendant to each unilaterally exercise their shared peremptory challenges was in violation of CPL 270.25 former (3) and resulted in defendant and codefendant exhausting their shared peremptory challenges before all jurors were selected … . A court’s mistaken denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal” … . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01874, Fourth Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: The court should not have allowed defendant and codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges unilaterally.​

 

/

PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, overruling precedent, determined that the knowledge element of Penal Law 220.16(1) (criminal possession of a controlled substance) requires only that a defendant know that the substance is a “narcotic drug” and does not require knowledge that the substance is a specific drug. Therefore Penal Law 220.16(1) is equivalent to 21 USC 841(1)(a) and defendant can be sentenced as a second felony offender based on the prior federal conviction:

… Penal Law § 220.39(1) … [states that] a person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree “when he knowingly and unlawfully sells . . . a narcotic drug.” We now hold that the “nature” of the substance possessed under Penal Law § 220.39(1), and under Penal Law § 220.16(1), the statute at issue in the instance case, is, in accordance with the statutory language, “a narcotic drug.” Knowledge of the particular drug possessed is not required. This definition also aligns the knowledge requirement with other decisions of this Court. For example, in People v Martin (153 AD2d 807, 808 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]), we held, in a different context, that “Penal Law § 220.16(1) does not distinguish between the types of narcotics possessed, but treats all drugs classified as narcotics interchangeably.”

Under the correct definition of the nature of the substance possessed, defendant’s federal conviction and Penal Law § 220.16(1) are strictly equivalent. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01857, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Here the First Department overruled precedent which held that the knowledge element of drug-possession charges required knowledge of the specific drug involved. Because the knowledge element requires only that a defendant know the possessed substance is a “narcotic drug,” Penal Law 220.16(1) is strictly equivalent to the federal statute 21 USC 841(1)(a) for purposes of a second felony offender adjudication.

 

/ , ,

ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the action should have been granted. The court, sua sponte, dismissed the case because of defective service. However, a dismissal on this ground requires a motion by a party. The dissenters argued the order at issue is not appealable and would have dismissed the appeal:

… CPLR 306-b specifies that “[i]f service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” (emphasis added). In consideration of this express language, other Departments of the Appellate Division have recognized that a court cannot dismiss a complaint on its own initiative for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the failure to effect proper service of process … . As the July 2023 order dismissed the underlying action for lack of personal jurisdiction sua sponte, the court erred in doing so absent a motion by one of the parties. On account of that error, the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s instant request that it exercise its discretionary power to vacate that order in the interest of substantial justice … . Plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate the July 2023 order dismissing the action should therefore be granted and the complaint reinstated. Briggs v Fresenius, 2026 NY Slip Op 01827, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, dismiss an action because of defective service. A party must move to dismiss on that ground.

 

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