You are here: / Denial of For Cause Juror Challenge Required Reversal

Search Results

/

Denial of For Cause Juror Challenge Required Reversal

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial court erroneously denied a “for cause” juror challenge:

The court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated his belief and concern that he recognized defendant from his neighborhood, along with his fear that he would “run into” defendant or his friends. After being apprised of defendant’s address, the panelist expressed an increased concern, resulting from the fact that he lived near that address. The panelist also expressed a “feeling of defendant’s guilt,” because he believed the neighborhood was “infected with drugs and drug dealers,” After further inquiry regarding whether the panelist could follow the law and remain impartial, he ultimately stated, “I’ll try. . . . I can’t promise you anything. . . .” Viewing his statements in context and as a whole, they did not amount to an unequivocal assurance of impartiality… .  People v Tavarez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06515, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

/ ,

No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband

The First Department determined there was no “intent” element to the constructive possession of contraband.  The marijuana and stun gun at issue were in an apartment defendant shared with his aunt and nephew. The defendant argued that, even if he was fully aware the items were in the apartment, the People were required to prove that he intended to exercise dominion and control over them.  The court wrote:

In defendant’s view, even if he was fully aware that there was contraband in the apartment he shared with his aunt and nephew, and even if he had unfettered control over the areas where the contraband was located, he was not guilty of possessing it since he merely tolerated his drug-dealing nephew’s use of the apartment as a repository for the contraband and had nothing else to do with it. We disagree.

There is no element of intent in constructive possession. A long line of authority makes clear that knowing constructive possession of tangible property is established where the People prove knowledge that the property is present and “a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband [was] found” … People v Rodriguez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06495, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

/ , ,

Statement Protected by “Common Interest Privilege,” Tortious Interference Action Can Only Be Brought Against a Stranger to the Contract

The First Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging defamation and tortious interference with contract.  The court explained that the statement made by a management employee was protected by the common interest privilege and only a stranger to a contract can bring a tortious interference claim:

Defendant…’s statement that plaintiff was “deliberately sabotaging” defendant[‘s] IT redesign project was protected by the common-interest privilege because it constituted a communication “made to persons who have some common interest in the subject matter” …, namely, the people working on the IT system redesign. The statement is also protected as one made by a “management employee[] having responsibility to report on the matter in dispute” … . Plaintiff’s allegations of malice, in an effort to overcome the common-interest privilege, amount to little more than “mere surmise and conjecture” … .

Plaintiff’s tortious interference claims … were also properly dismissed. “It is well established that only a stranger to a contract, such as a third party, can be liable for tortious interference with a contract” … . Ashby v ALM Media LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 06497, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

/ ,

Affirmative Defense of Recoupment Not Extinguished by Bankruptcy Sale

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a recoupment affirmative defense, the First Department noted the defense is not extinguished by a bankruptcy sale:

The affirmative defense of recoupment is not an “interest” that is extinguishable by a “free and clear” sale under the Bankruptcy Code … . Further * * * [d]efendant’s recoupment defense arises out of the same transaction (i.e., the same contract) that forms the basis for plaintiff’s action against defendant… . Hispanic Ind Tel Sales LLC v Unaa Vez Mas LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 06518, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

/ ,

Indictment Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based on Prosecutorial Misconduct

In determining the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment based upon the prosecutorial misconduct, the Fourth Department explained:

“ ‘[D]ismissal of an indictment under CPL 210.35 (5) must meet a high test and is limited to instances of prosecutorial misconduct, fraudulent conduct or errors which potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … .  As the Court of Appeals has stated, “not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective.  Typically, the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … .

Here, the prosecutor was required to establish that the four-year-old victim could provide unsworn testimony, but failed to do so… . The prosecutor also violated the unsworn witness rule during an attempt to persuade the child to testify about the incident … .  Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor did not thereby engage in conduct that was fraudulent in nature, nor was the prosecutor’s conduct so egregious as to impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings … .  We further conclude that the remaining evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the indictment.  People v Elioff, 1002, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

/ ,

Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before Police Had Probable Cause

The Fourth Department reversed the suppression court and granted defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department concluded that the evidence of which the police were aware at the time defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police care did not amount to probable cause.  A baggie containing drugs and a dagger were not found until after the illegal arrest:

…[T]he police were justified in approaching the vehicle outside the bar because they had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception … . We further conclude that the police were justified in pursuing the vehicle inasmuch as “defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that [he] may be engaged in criminal activity, [gave] rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit” … .  Such reasonable suspicion also gave the police the authority to stop the vehicle … .

…[W]e conclude that an arrest occurred here when defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.  Under such circumstances, “a reasonable man innocent of any crime, would have thought” that he was under arrest … .  “[V]arious factors, when combined with the street exchange of a ‘telltale sign’ of narcotics, may give rise to probable cause that a narcotics offense has occurred.  Those factors relevant to assessing probable cause include the exchange of currency; whether the particular community has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s experience and training in drug investigations; and any ‘additional evidence of furtive or evasive behavior on the part of the participants’ ” … .  Here, the police observed neither a “ ‘telltale sign’ ” of narcotics, such as a glassine baggie, nor the exchange of currency … .  Thus, despite the observations of the police outside the bar, their experience in drug investigations, and defendant’s flight, we conclude that the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant before the dagger and first baggie were observed. People v Lee, 1005, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

/ ,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements

The Fourth Department sent the case back to the suppression court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of statements that had not been included in the initial 710.30 notice provided in connection with a prior indictment that had been dismissed. The statements were included in the 710.30 notice provided in connection with the superseding indictment. The Fourth Department determined the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly refused to preclude the additional statements included in the CPL 710.30 notice served by the People after the superseding indictment was filed … .  “Those [statements] were not referenced in the CPL 710.30 notice that was served in connection with the original indictment, but the record establishes that the People filed the superseding indictment out of necessity after the court dismissed . . . the original indictment” … .  We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the admissibility of the additional statements without reopening the Huntley hearing and affording defendant a further opportunity to contest their admissibility.  The court concluded that the statements were spontaneously made and therefore not subject to suppression.  At the time of the Huntley hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial indictment, however, the only issue before the court with respect to the additional statements was whether they should be precluded on the ground that they had not been included in the first CPL 710.30 notice.  Consequently, inasmuch as the voluntariness of the additional statements was not at issue at that time, defendant had no reason or opportunity to explore the issues of spontaneity or the effect of the previously-given Miranda warnings, or to raise any other issues regarding the admissibility of those statements.  Thus, “the hearing must be reopened” to afford him that opportunity… . People v Roberts, 945, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

/

Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper

The Fourth Department determined defendant was properly ordered to pay restitution to the police department in a drug case, but that payment of a surcharge should not have been ordered:

… [A] defendant convicted of, inter alia, a class C “ ‘felony involving the sale of a controlled substance’ may be ordered to repay a law enforcement agency ‘the amount of funds expended in the actual purchase’ of a controlled substance” … .  Section 60.27 (9) was amended in 1991 “to authorize restitution to law enforcement agencies for unrecovered funds utilized to purchase narcotics as part of investigations leading to convictions” … .  We therefore conclude … that the court properly directed defendant to pay restitution to the City of Oswego Police Department for the funds it expended in buying drugs from him.

The People correctly concede with respect to defendant’s further contention … that the court erred in imposing a surcharge on that restitution order.  Penal Law § 60.27 (9) further provides that “[a]ny restitution which may be required to be made to a law enforcement agency pursuant to this section . . . shall not include a designated surcharge.”  People v Boatman, 940, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

/ ,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court to Determine Whether Police Had Sufficient Reason for Asking About Drugs and Weapons After Traffic Stop

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a determination whether the police had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry about the presence of drugs of weapons after a traffic stop:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun recovered from the vehicle based upon the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The testimony at the suppression hearing established that, during a lawful traffic stop, one of the police officers asked defendant whether there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle before instructing defendant to exit the vehicle.  After defendant admitted to having marihuana on his person, the police officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and, following suspicious behavior by another occupant of the vehicle, searched the vehicle and found a gun in plain view.  Notably, the court did not address whether the officer had the requisite founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry concerning the presence of drugs or weapons in the vehicle … . Instead, the court refused to suppress the gun on the ground that the police “could” have taken various actions after the traffic stop that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the gun.  The People, – however, did not raise the inevitable discovery doctrine as a ground for denying suppression of the gun, nor did they meet their burden of “demonstrat[ing] a very high degree of probability that normal police procedures would have uncovered the challenged evidence independently of [a] tainted source”… . People v Sykes, 849, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

/ ,

Erroneous Molineux Rulings Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding error in the trial court’s ruling evidence of prior bad acts was admissible:

Before the trial, the court granted the People’s motion to present Molineux evidence for the limited purpose of proving the absence of mistake in defendant’s possession of the forged checks (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293-294).  Pursuant to the court’s ruling, the People presented evidence on their direct case concerning three of defendant’s prior convictions as well as one investigation that did not result in criminal charges, arising from defendant’s conduct in writing checks on his accounts with knowledge that those accounts either were closed or had insufficient funds.  The court erred in ruling that such evidence was relevant to establish the absence of mistake.  The disputed issues at trial were whether defendant knew that the checks were forged and whether defendant was a knowing participant in, or an innocent victim of, a fraudulent check scheme.  Defendant’s prior bad acts were not “directly relevant” to the absence of mistake in defendant’s possession of the forged checks because those prior bad acts are not probative of defendant’s ability to recognize that the checks were forgeries or that he had become knowingly involved in a fraudulent check scheme … .  Contrary to the People’s contention, the Molineux evidence was not admissible to prove defendant’s “familiarity with check frauds and his ability to deceive individuals through banking schemes” inasmuch as such evidence “tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” .. .  Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has expressly declined to create a “ ‘specialized crime’ exception to Molineux” when the charged crime is one “that require[s] unusual skills, knowledge and access to the means of committing it” … .  We therefore conclude that evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts was inadmissible as a matter of law … .

We further conclude in any event with respect to the court’s Molineux ruling that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect … .  The evidence was “of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to [defendant]” and therefore should not have been admitted … .  We further conclude that the error in admitting the evidence is not harmless …, even in view of the court’s limiting instruction.  People v Mhina, 871, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

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