You are here: / FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE...

Search Results

/ , ,

FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lynch, reversing the Appellate Division, determined forensic evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity should not have been excluded pursuant to the Rape Shield Law. Under the circumstances, by excluding forensic evidence of sexual activity which did not implicate the defendant deprived defendant of the right to present a defense. The complainant alleged defendant inserted his finger in her vagina and fondled her breasts. A forensic analysis of a vaginal swab and complainant’s underwear revealed the presence of complainant’s saliva and fluids from two unidentified males:

… [T]he legislature enumerated five exceptions to CPL 60.42’s [the Rape Shield Law’s] evidentiary proscriptions. The first four exceptions “allow evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct in narrowly defined factual circumstances,” whereas the fifth “is a broader ‘interest of justice’ provision vesting discretion in the trial court” (Williams, 81 NY2d at 311). “The exceptions . . . recognize that any law circumscribing the ability of the accused to defend against criminal charges remains subject to limitation by constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses” … .

Defendant argues that the forensic evidence was admissible under several of the exceptions set forth in CPL 60.42. We need not address every basis raised because we conclude that the trial court erred in denying admission of the evidence under CPL 60.42 (5). Under this subdivision, evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct may be admitted in evidence during a sex crime prosecution when it “is determined by the [trial] court after an offer of proof by the accused . . . to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice” (CPL 60.42 [5]). “Offer of proof is not a term of art but its generally accepted meaning . . . is to summarize the substance or content of the evidence” … . In his motion in limine, defense counsel delineated the findings contained in the forensic reports and explained how they constituted “evidence of something other than . . . defendant having engaged in inappropriate and unlawful sexual activity with [the complainant].” This was a sufficient offer of proof under Williams (81 NY2d at 314). People v Cerda, 2023 NY Slip Op 05305, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here the interest-of-justice exception to the Rape Shield Law applied. The majority found that the exclusion of forensic evidence of complainant’s sexual activity (which did not implicate the defendant) violated defendant’s right to put on a defense.

 

/ , , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S APPEAL OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING HER CUSTODY/HABEAS CORPUS PETITION STEMMING FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE FATHER’S FAILURE TO RETURN THE CHILDREN; THE MAJORITY SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE STANDING ISSUE; THREE DISSENTERS ARGUED FAMILY COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION BECAUSE NO CUSTODY ORDER WAS IN PLACE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge comprehensive dissent, determined the Appellate Division erred when it refused to consider mother’s appeal of the denial of her habeas corpus petition seeking the return of her children. The children visited father out-of-state and one of them was not allowed to return. The Appellate Division erred when it found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction for the appeal. The matter was sent back for consideration of mother’s standing to bring the habeas corpus petition. The dissenters argued the habeas corpus petition was erroneously dismissed by Family Court on the ground that mother did not have standing because there was no custody order in place for the children. But the majority wanted the development of a record on the standing issue:

… Family Court denied the mother’s applications both for sole custody and habeas corpus relief. As the parties who have appeared before us agree, the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the mother’s ensuing appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By dismissing the appeal upon a motion, and upon an undeveloped record, without full briefing and without providing all parties the opportunity to appear, the Appellate Division has rendered impossible meaningful appellate review of the weighty issues raised in this case. To the extent that the Appellate Division’s order on the motion to dismiss could be read, as the dissenters read it, to be a determination that the mother lacked standing to seek habeas corpus relief without an order of custody in place, the issue of standing did not impact the subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Division … . Regardless of whether that Court had the “power to reach the merits,” an issue on which we express no opinion, the Court did not lack the “competence to entertain” the appeal … . Therefore, we remit to the Appellate Division for an expeditious determination on the merits of the standing question presented herein and, if warranted, disposition of any other issues that the parties may raise. Matter of Celinette H.H. v Michelle R., 2023 NY Slip Op 05303, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: The majority held the Appellate Division should not have refused to consider mother’s appeal on the ground she did not have standing to bring her custody/habeas corpus petition. The Appellate Division did not lack subject matter jurisdiction. The matter was sent back for a ruling on the standing question.

 

/

THE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 3203(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES A PROPORTIONAL REFUND WHEN THE INSURED DIES DURING THE PREMIUM PERIOD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, answering a certified question from the Second Department, determined that the universal life policy at issue was not subject to Insurance Law 3203(a)(2) which requires a proportional refund of a paid life insurance premium when the insured dies during the period covered by the premium. Universal life policies are substantively different from term or whole life policies. The court explained the unique aspects of universal life insurance:

Universal life insurance is distinct from term and whole life insurance. To maintain coverage under a term or whole life policy, the policyholder must pay fixed, periodic premiums. A universal life insurance policy does not have a fixed premium—instead, the policyholder can make a payment in any amount, at any time, subject to certain conditions specified in the policy. These payments are deposited in a “cash value account,” also known as a “policy account,” an interest-earning account administered by the insurer. The insurer deducts from the policy account the cost of insurance (COI), which varies from month to month based on variables including the insurer’s total exposure, any administrative fees, and other required payments from the policy account. The remaining funds in the policy account can grow tax-free over time based on an interest rate set by the insurer and can fund future deductions. Universal life insurance policyholders can typically add funds to the policy account at any time and in any amount. Policyholders often choose—but are not required—to pay a “planned premium,” which is a periodic payment often designed, but not guaranteed, to keep the policy in force. A failure to pay a planned premium does not result in termination or lapse of the policy so long as the funds in the policy account are sufficient to cover the deductions. Depending on the terms of the specific policy, the policyholder may also be able to withdraw funds or take loans against the policy value as long as sufficient funds remain to cover the deductions. Nitkewicz v Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 05302, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here the universal life insurance policy was not subject to Insurance Law 3202(a)(2) which requires a proportional refund of the premium when the insured dies during the premium period.

Practice Point: The unique aspects of a universal life insurance policy versus a term or whole life policy clearly explained.

 

/ ,

EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EFFECT OF A DRUG MIXED WITH ALCOHOL ON DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO FORM THE INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER AND ASSAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO LAY A FOUNDATION TO QUALIFY AN EMAIL WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY AS A BUSINESS RECORD; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s attempted murder and assault convictions, determined expert testimony explaining the effects of a drug taken by the defendant along with alcohol should have been admitted. In addition, an email in which a police officer, who was not at the scene, referred to the defendant’s condition as “highly intoxicated” should not have been excluded as hearsay. If the document had been qualified as a business record, it would have been admissible. The defendant should have been given an opportunity to establish a foundation for the admissibility of the email:

As a general rule, the admissibility and limits of expert testimony lie primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court” … . The criteria to be used is “whether the proffered expert testimony ‘would aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict’ ” … , however, and the testimony proffered here regarding the effect of combined clonazepam and alcohol use would undoubtedly be useful to a lay jury in assessing “the ability of a defendant to form the intent to commit a crime following drug and alcohol consumption” … . As the Court of Appeals explained when presented with a comparable situation, while “jurors might be familiar with the effects of alcohol on one’s mental state, the combined impact of” alcohol and other drugs “on a person’s ability to act purposefully cannot be said as a matter of law to be within the ken of the typical juror” … . * * *

County Court erred in refusing to allow defendant to question the author of the preliminary investigation report describing defendant as “highly intoxicated” and then declining to admit the document into evidence on hearsay grounds because its author was not present on the night of the incident. Defendant must be afforded an opportunity to establish the proper foundation to qualify the email as a business record within the meaning of CPLR 4518 and, if defendant is successful in that effort, the fact that its author lacked personal knowledge of defendant’s intoxication goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the statements therein … . People v Mawhiney, 2023 NY Slip Op 05289, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Where an issue is beyond the ken of an average juror, here the effect of a drug and alcohol combination on the defendant’s ability to form intent, expert testimony should be admitted.

Practice Point: Here an email by a police officer who was not at the scene of the shooting referred to the defendant as “highly intoxicated.” Although the statement is hearsay, the email may be admissible if it is demonstrated to be a business record.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant was not given notice of some of the grounds County Court relied upon for an upward departure re: defendant’s SORA risk-level assessment. That constituted a violation of defendant’s right to due process:

While … defendant [was] on notice that his persistent sexually-motivated criminal conduct would be relied upon by the People as a factor for upward departure, there is no similar indication that his concurrent conviction for failure to register along with the facts underlying his juvenile delinquency adjudication would be considered … . … “[D]efendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure” on the specific bases upon which the People, and consequently County Court, would rely in considering that relief … . … [T]the matter must be remanded for a new hearing, upon proper notice to defendant of the justifications relied upon by the People specific to their request for such relief. People v Maurer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05290, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Due process requires that a defendant be notified of all of the evidence which will be relied upon by the People and the court for a SORA risk assessment.

 

/ , ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S ASSERTION THAT THE FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PROXIMATELY CAUSED DECEDENT’S PREMATURE DEATH WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit raised a question of fact whether defendants’ failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease proximately caused decedent’s premature death:

… Supreme Court properly determined that the affirmation of the defendants’ expert established, prima facie, that the treatment provided by the defendants was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s alleged injuries … . However, … the affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert, wherein the expert opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the defendants’ departures from accepted standards of medical care proximately caused the decedent to die prematurely … , as a result of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to causation … . Persuad v Hassan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05279, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged defendants’ failure to diagnose decedent’s atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact on causation by asserting the failure to diagnose the disease proximately caused decedent’s premature death.

 

/

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the COVID-19 toll specific to CPL 30.30 and 190.80 applied and the People, therefore, did not violate the speedy trial statute:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided that “[s]ection 30.30 and [s]ection 190.80 of the criminal procedure law are suspended to the extent necessary to toll any time periods contained therein for the period during which the criminal action is proceeding on the basis of a felony complaint through arraignment on the indictment or on a superior court information and thereafter shall not be tolled” (9 NYCRR 8.202.87). Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-8.202.106).

Upon renewal, the County Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the determination of the court, Executive Order No. 202.87, while in effect, constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … . People v Marino, 2023 NY Slip Op 05273, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the time between the filing of the felony complaint and arraignment on the indictment was excluded from the speedy trial clock pursuant to COVID-19 pandemic Executive Orders.

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case should have been granted. Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent should not have been considered:

… [P]laintiff, who was wearing a bright green safety vest, was standing at or near the sideview mirror of the cab while the cab was stopped at a tollbooth when the cab pulled forward and came into contact with the plaintiff’s foot or ankle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the Supreme Court made a determination that, based on the evidence presented, a jury could determine whether the plaintiff was “vigilant” under the circumstances, that is immaterial to the plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in this case. “To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff does not bear the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence” … .

… [P]laintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence on the issue of the defendants’ liability, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212[f] …). Vasquez v Vullis Corp, 2023 NY Slip Op 05286, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was struck by defendant’s car. At the summary judgment stage, whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent is not relevant. Defendant driver was expected to see what should have been seen.

 

/ ,

A COMPLAINT THAT IS NEVER SERVED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN “ACTION;” HERE A PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED; THEREFORE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS ANOTHER IDENTICAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed because it was identical to a prior action. The first complaint was never served so there was no prior action:

CPLR 3211(a)(4) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against [them] on the ground that . . . there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” However, a complaint must have been served in that other action, otherwise it is not “another action,” or a “prior action pending” … within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(4) … . Here, it is undisputed that the complaint in the prior action was not served. Quinones v Z & B Trucking, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05282, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: A complaint which is never served does not constitute an “action.” The subsequent identical complaint should not have been be dismissed on the ground there was a prior identical action.

 

/ , ,

THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN OF DECEDENT’S PERSON AND PROPERTY; THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CPLR 408 IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the executor of decedent’s estate (Oppedisano) was entitled to a hearing and discovery with respect to the fess and disbursements awarded to the guardian of decedent’s person and property:

… [T]here are disputed issues of fact as to the accuracy and completeness of the guardian’s final account, and whether the guardian failed to adequately investigate the alleged misappropriation of the decedent’s assets and should be denied fees and/or surcharged for breaching his fiduciary duties. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in denying Oppedisano’s objections to the guardian’s final account without conducting a hearing … .

Pursuant to CPLR 408, leave of court generally is required for disclosure in a special proceeding … . Insofar as discovery tends to prolong a case, and therefore is inconsistent with the summary nature of a special proceeding, such disclosure is granted only where it is demonstrated that there is need for such relief … . When leave of court is granted, disclosure takes place in accordance with CPLR 3101(a), which generally provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” … . The Court of Appeals has interpreted the phrase “material and necessary” liberally as requiring, upon request, disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . * * *

Oppedisano demonstrated that the requested disclosure was material and necessary to establishing his objections that the guardian’s final account was inaccurate and/or incomplete and that the guardian breached his fiduciary duties and should be denied fees and/or surcharged, and there was no contravening demonstration that the proposed discovery would be prejudicial or unduly burdensome, would violate confidentiality, or would unduly delay the case. Matter of Giuliana M. (DeCarolis), 2023 NY Slip Op 05262, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the executor was entitled to a hearing on his objections to the fees and disbursements awarded decedent’s guardian and was entitled to discovery pursuant to CPLR 408. In a special proceeding discovery is by leave of court.

 

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