You are here: / Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

Search Results

/ ,

Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

The First Department explained the elements of the offense of tampering with physical evidence as follows:

…[A] person is guilty of the completed crime of tampering with physical evidence when, “[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment” (Penal Law 215.45[2]).

The offense of tampering does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, but only that a defendant perform an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence…. Regardless of whether the defendant is successful in suppressing the evidence, once an act of concealment is completed with the requisite mens rea, the offense of tampering has been committed.  People v Eaglesgrave, 2013 NY Slip Op 05001, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ ,

Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion

The First Department determined the following scenario provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the detention and frisk of the juvenile:

A police officer testified that she was investigating an unruly crowd when she observed appellant walking towards her with his arm under his shirt, clutching an object held at his waist. Based on the rigidity of his body and how tightly he held the object, she believed it to be a weapon. As he passed by, she heard him say that he was “going to get him.” When she approached with her shield visible around her neck, appellant moved towards her, whereupon she grabbed his hand and felt the handle of a knife. During a brief struggle, the knife fell to the ground. Appellant was placed under arrest and the knife, which had a six-inch blade, was recovered.  Matter of Daquan B, 2013 NY Slip Op 04974 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ , , ,

Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed

In dismissing the appeals, the First Department held that only an attorney can represent a voluntary association

Petitioner is a voluntary association comprised of rent-regulated tenants in the subject building. Patricia Pillette is a member of the association and appears pro se purportedly on behalf of the association. However, Pillette is not an attorney, and a voluntary association may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York (see CPLR 321[a]). Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to appear by attorney requires dismissal of the appeals… .  Matter of Tenants Comm of 36 Gramercy Park v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2013 NY Slip Op 04984, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ , ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Allegations Not Specific Enough

The First Department determined plaintiff’s allegations in support of a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action were not specific enough to survive a motion to dismiss:

Because the underlying allegations of wrongdoing were inadequately pleaded, the fiduciary breach and injunction causes of action were not sustainable. Although plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendant tried to prevent her from having any meaningful participation in the companies’ operation, her allegations are vague and conclusory, made without any specific instances of the alleged misconduct…. The lack of particularity with respect to plaintiff’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty (CPLR 3016[b]) is not excused by the individual defendant’s alleged refusal to provide information or by the lack of discovery, as information regarding the alleged denial of participation in corporate management was not solely in the individual defendant’s possession…. Moreover, plaintiff failed to assert specific dates that she had requested information, or to specify the information she had requested….  Berardi v Beradi, 2013 NY Slip Op 04976, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ , ,

Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance

In an action based on a leaky roof in a condominium, the First Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence cause of action against the sponsor and the cause of action for nuisance, also sounding in negligence, should not be dismissed:

The sponsor owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiffs to keep the condominium, including its roof, in good repair (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 78[1];…) . The sponsor breached that duty: Its principal… admitted that the original roof that the sponsor had caused to be installed did not render the condominium watertight and that there were instances of water infiltration into plaintiffs’ unit that needed to be addressed by the sponsor. * * *

Plaintiffs are correct that nuisance can be negligent; it does not have to be intentional…. In any event, they raised a triable issue of fact whether the sponsor’s allowing water to continue infiltrating their unit was intentional….  Liberman v Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04996, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ ,

Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal

In an action based on the allegation a bus was traveling too close to the curb when it struck plaintiff, the First Department (over a dissent) determined testimony that bus drivers’ operating criteria “are much higher than anyone else’s, so I would look at the accident by our standards a lot different from anyone else” required a new trial on liability:

The admission of testimony that holds a defendant to a higher standard of care than required by common law is clearly erroneous…. Moreover, the admitted testimony cannot be considered harmless error because it concerns the ultimate issue to be decided and corroborates unsupported theories of liability proffered by plaintiff’s expert, thereby lending them an unwarranted air of authority. It is well settled that “the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts”…. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve — as a question of fact — whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff…. As this Court has noted numerous times, “Where the offered proof intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the court to render a ruling on a legal issue, the attempt by a plaintiff to arrogate to himself a judicial function under the guise of expert testimony will be rejected”….  Williams v NYC Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04975, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/

Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down

The First Department explained the application of res ipsa loquitur, where it was alleged a garage door suddenly came down on plaintiff’s head, as follows:

The motion court correctly determined that res ipsa loquitur applies in this action involving an accident that occurred, according to plaintiff’s testimony, when a garage door suddenly fell and struck him on the head, since this is the type of event that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence … . Notwithstanding defendants’ contentions that others could have had access to the garage door, plaintiff demonstrated sufficient exclusivity of control. “[R]es ipsa loquitur does not require sole physical access to the instrumentality causing the injury and can be applied in situations where more than one defendant could have exercised exclusive control” … . Hutchings v Yuter, 2013 NY Slip Op 04988, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

/ ,

Default Finding Should Not Have Been Made Where Attorney Appeared and Asked for Adjournment

In reversing the order of Family Court, the Fourth Department determined the Support Magistrate should not have ruled respondent had defaulted (respondent’s attorney appeared and requested an adjournment) and the colloquy between petitioner and the Support Magistrate was not a sufficient basis for a factual finding respondent had willfully violated a support order.  Family Court, therefore, should not have confirmed the Support Magistrate’s order.  Matter of Manning v Sobotka, 739, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

/

Child Support Awarded to Wife Even though Husband Awarded Sole Custody; Residency Shared Equally/Husband Has Much Higher Income than Wife

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lindley, the Fourth Department determined child support should have been awarded to the wife (defendant), even though the husband had sole legal custody, because the residency of the children was shared equally and the wife’s income was less than the husband’s:

…[T]he court erred in awarding child support to plaintiff and that the court instead should have awarded child support to her. It is well settled that in shared residency arrangements, where neither parent has the children for a majority of the time, the party with the higher income is deemed to be the noncustodial parent for purposes of child support….  Here, as noted, the residency schedule affords the parties equal time with the children, and thus neither party has the children for the majority of the time. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s income exceeds that of defendant — at the time of trial, plaintiff earned $134,924.48 annually, while the JHO imputed income of $25,000 to defendant, whose actual earnings were $14,109.53— plaintiff is the “noncustodial” parent and, as such, he must pay child support to defendant.

It is true, as plaintiff points out, that [the cited cases] involve awards of joint legal custody, whereas he was awarded sole legal custody; that fact, however, should not affect the child support determination.  Although the award of sole legal custody to plaintiff allows him to make important decisions in the children’s lives, that decision-making authority does not increase his child-related costs. A parent’s child-related costs are dictated by the amount of time he or she spends with the children, and, here, plaintiff spends no more time with the children than does defendant.  We note, moreover, that there is already a significant disparity in the parties’ incomes, and an award of child support to plaintiff would only widen that gulf.  In our view, the children’s standard of living should not vary so drastically from one parent’s house to the other.

Thus, under the circumstances of this case — where plaintiff has sole legal custody, but the residency schedule affords the parents equal time with the children — an award of child support to defendant will best “assure that [the] children will realize the maximum benefit of their parents’ resources and continue, as near as possible, their preseparation standard of living in each household” … .  Leonard v Leonard, 402, 4th Dept 6-28-13 

 

/ ,

Contractual Relationship Did Not Preclude Causes of Action Sounding in Tort

In affirming most of Supreme Court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Department explained why the economic loss doctrine did not preclude plaintiff’s recovery in tort, in spite of the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant and the contract-based causes of action in the complaint.  Pursuant to two contracts, the defendant supplied electronics and fluorescent-tube recycling systems which allegedly failed resulting in mercury contamination:

…[T]he economic loss doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering in tort as a matter of law.“ Pursuant to that doctrine, a plaintiff may not recover in tort against a manufacturer for economic loss that is contractually based, ‘whether due to injury to the product itself or consequential losses flowing therefrom’ ”…. Where, however, there is harm to persons or property other than the property that is the subject of the contract, a plaintiff is entitled to recover in tort… .  The factors to consider are “the nature of the defect, the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred, and the damages sought”…. We conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion with respect to the causes of action sounding in tort because the evidence submitted by defendant establishes that the mercury contamination of plaintiff’s facility, which was allegedly caused by defendant’s products, caused damage to persons and property other than the property that was the subject of the contracts.   Electrical Waste Recycling Group, Limited v Andela Tool & Machine, Inc…, 626, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

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