You are here: / THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN THE MUGGING,...

Search Results

/ ,

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN THE MUGGING, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE VICTIM SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURY, AND INSUFFICENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE VICTIM’S WALLET AND CELL PHONE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. The victim said he was mugged by three men and his wallet and cell phone were stolen. The police were able to track the cell phone and, based on the tracking device, stopped a car 30 to 40 minutes after the mugging. There were four men, including defendant, in the car. The other three men in the car pled guilty. The wallet and cell phone were found in the car. The evidence that defendant participated in the mugging was insufficient, the evidence the victim suffered physical injury was insufficient, and the evidence defendant constructively possessed the wallet and cell phone was insufficient:

… [W]e find that the People failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery and assault.  * * *

Given the paucity of proof regarding the victim’s injuries, we agree with defendant that the evidence fails to establish that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) … . * * *

… [T]he … circumstantial evidence falls short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant constructively possessed the wallet and the credit and debit cards contained therein or that any such possession was knowing. Although the testimony demonstrated that the wallet was found somewhere in the back seat, there was no other evidence connecting defendant to the stolen property or demonstrating his awareness of its presence inside the vehicle. … [T]he victim asserted that there were three black males involved in the robbery and assault and there were four black males in the vehicle when it was stopped some 30 to 40 minutes afterward, leaving open the possibility that one of the passengers entered the vehicle after the robbery and assault … . People v Green, 2021 NY Slip Op 02841, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

/ , ,

CLAIMANT-INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING HE WAS BEATEN BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE OFFICERS WERE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE BEATING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing the Court of Claims, over a two-justice dissent, determined the claimant-inmate’s action alleging claimant was beaten by corrections officers after lodging a complaint against one of the officers (Poupore) should not have been dismissed. The Court of Claims ruled the state could not be liable for the beating because the officers were not acting within the scope of their employment:

… [T]he undisputed evidence demonstrated that the incident took place at Clinton Correctional Facility, that the correction officers involved were on duty and that claimant’s encounter with Poupore by the stairway was occasioned by claimant having been called downstairs for an interview with Wood [Poupre’s supervisor] … . … [T]estimony from defendant’s witnesses demonstrated that pat frisks are routinely conducted prior to inmate interviews and that Poupore was instructed to pat frisk claimant prior to his interview. Accepting claimant’s version of events as true, Poupore struck claimant during the course of that employer-sanctioned pat frisk, which then led to the involvement of additional correction officers. If claimant’s account is credited, Poupore’s intentional tortious act of punching claimant in the head was not so divorced from the performance of his pat-frisk duties so as to preclude a finding that he was acting within the scope of employment. Nor can we conclude as a matter of law that the ensuing altercation was wholly outside the scope of the additional correction officers’ duties. Galloway v State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 02855, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT-SEX-OFFENDER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent-sex-offender in this civil commitment proceeding, who was properly allowed to represent himself with a Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) attorney as stand-by counsel, should not be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who had been victims of the respondent’s offenses. The cross-examination should be done by stand-by counsel:

… [A]llowing respondent to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses could thwart or impair petitioner’s ability to sustain its burden of proof by causing the witnesses to back out of testifying or by causing a “chilling effect” on their testimony. Moreover, petitioner has a compelling interest in protecting the victim witnesses from any possible retraumatization resulting from respondent personally conducting cross-examinations of them.

Upon balancing the foregoing Mathews factors, we find that, to the extent that respondent has a due process right to self-representation, such right does not entitle him to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses whom he was adjudicated or alleged to have victimized. Thus, notwithstanding respondent’s pro se status, the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses must be conducted by respondent’s standby counsel (MHLS) or, should respondent prefer, other court-appointed counsel. Matter of State of N.Y. v John T., 2021 NY Slip Op 02862, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

/ , ,

OWNERS OF BUSINESSES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ALLEGED DECREASED PARKING SPACES, INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND THE BLOCKING OF SCENIC VIEWS AS REASONS FOR OVERTURNING THE SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION; THE BUSINESS OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE DECLARATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld the negative SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) declaration approving the construction of a mixed use structure which would reduce the number of parking spaces available in Oneonta. The fact that the petitioners owned businesses in the vicinity of the new construction did not confer standing to contest the negative declaration:

Although petitioners have established that their businesses are within close proximity to the project site, that fact alone does not confer automatic standing in the SEQRA context … . Petitioners’ allegations largely hinged on economic business concerns occasioned by an alleged decrease in available parking … , and their claim relating to traffic impacts “fail[s] to demonstrate an environmental injury different from that suffered by the public at large” … . Although the obstruction of a scenic view may constitute an environmental injury within the zone of interests sought to be protected by SEQRA … , the concerns espoused by certain petitioners regarding potential adverse scenic impacts to their businesses were undeveloped and otherwise too speculative to establish standing in these circumstances … . We also note that the project site is located in a “mixed use” district (MU-1) — which permits the type of development contemplated — and, according to the full environmental assessment form, there are no officially designated scenic or aesthetic resources located within five miles … . Matter of Peachin v City of Oneonta, 2021 NY Slip Op 02863, Third Detp 5-6-21

 

/ ,

WRONGFUL DEATH PROCEEDS BELONG TO THE DISTRIBUTEES, NOT THE ESTATE; THEREFORE, RATHER THAN DIVIDING THE PROCEEDS EQUALLY, SURROGATE’S COURT MUST CONDUCT A HEARING AND DISPURSE THE PROCEEDS BASED UPON PECUNIARY LOSS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, noted that the proceeds of a wrongful death action belong to the distributees, not the estate. Therefore the proceeds should not be divided equally among the distributees:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding in Surrogate Court seeking judicial allocation and distribution of the settlement proceeds resulting from a Supreme Court wrongful death action. The proceeds of a wrongful death action belong to the statutory distributees of the decedent and not to the estate; therefore, the law does not presume equal distribution of shares (see EPTL 5—4.3 and 5—4.4[a][1] ). Instead, each distributee receives damages in proportion to the pecuniary injuries suffered by him or her, as determined after a hearing in Surrogate’s Court (see EPTL 5—4.4[a][1]). Here, Surrogate’s Court allocated objectant 50% of the settlement proceeds of the wrongful death action without conducting a hearing on the issue of pecuniary loss. Matter of Dixson, 2021 NY Slip Op 02870, First Dept 5-6-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED IT HAD RAINED FOR ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR; THEREFORE HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff testified it had only begun raining five minutes before she slipped and fell on water on the floor, which she did not see until after she fell:

Defendants established prima facie that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on their lobby floor that plaintiff alleges caused her to slip and fall … . Their property manager stated in an affidavit that she conducted a search of defendants’ records for complaints about water on the lobby floor between January 1, 2015 and July 14, 2015, the date of plaintiff’s accident, and found none except for the complaint made by plaintiff after she fell. That someone fell in the lobby while it was raining after stepping off a mat about a year before plaintiff’s accident does not raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had actual notice of the water that caused plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff’s own testimony established prima facie that defendants did not have constructive notice of water on the lobby floor; she testified that it was sunny when she left for lunch, that it did not start raining that day until about five minutes before she reentered the building, and that she did not see the water until after she fell … . A general awareness that the lobby floor could become wet during inclement weather is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the specific condition that caused plaintiff’s fall … . Barreto v 750 Third Owner, LLC, 021 NY Slip Op 02868, First Dept 5-6-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, ON A BICYCLE, WAS STRUCK BY A BUS AND SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, A TORN ROTATOR CUFF AND SEVERAL HERNIATED DISCS; THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARDS, WHICH INCLUDED $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES, WERE DEEMED UNREASONABLE; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated several of the jury’s damages awards and ordered a new trial on damages. Plaintiff was struck by a bus while on a motorized bike resulting in traumatic brain injury, a torn rotator cuff and several herniated discs:

The jury’s award of $0 for future pain and suffering is inconsistent with its award of $250,000 for future medical expenses and, in any event, against the weight of the evidence and materially deviates from what would be reasonable compensation … .

Given the jury’s finding that plaintiff sustained a “significant limitation of use,” and its award of future medical costs over a period of 25 years, it is clear that the jury found plaintiff to have suffered injuries that will continue to impair his life into the future, and the award of $0 for future pain and suffering is irreconcilable with this finding and cannot stand … .

The award of $750,000 for past pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation in light of plaintiff’s shoulder, spine, and traumatic brain injuries … .

The $0 awards for past and future lost earnings were against the weight of the evidence in light of plaintiff’s testimony regarding his prior income and current unemployment. Dr. Cornelius E. Gorman testified that plaintiff’s “career is lost” and that he “cannot qualify for competitive employment” given his cognitive deficits. The jury had no reasonable basis for depriving plaintiff of damages for past and future loss of earnings … . Scott v Posas, 2021 NY Slip Op 02885, First Dept 5-6-21

 

/ ,

THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court and holding that decisions to the contrary should no longer be followed, determined the odor of marijuana smoke and the small about of marijuana on the console of the defendant’s car did not, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, justify the full search of the trunk of the car. Therefore the firearm found in the trunk should have been suppressed:

… “[T]he automobile exception. . . is an exception only to the warrant requirement; it does not, in contrast to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, dispense with the requirement that there be probable cause to search the vehicle” … . * * *

We are left with the question of whether the presence of a small amount of marijuana consistent with personal use provided the requisite probable cause and nexus to justify a search of the trunk. We find that in this case it did not. The only reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence here was that the de minimis amount of unburnt marijuana was for personal use, not for distribution or trafficking. The officer did not find any drug paraphernalia in the car. Indeed, in this case, there was “scant evidence of drugs in the car” … , and there was no probable cause to believe there was contraband in the trunk of the car. Therefore, because a proper search pursuant to the automobile exception “is no narrower-and no broader-than [sic] the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause, [and] otherwise is as the magistrate could authorize” … , we find that here the search of the trunk was not supported by probable cause. Consequently, the gun found therein, and the statements made by defendant thereafter, should have been suppressed. People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 02880, First Dept 5-6-21

 

/ ,

A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL PRECLUDES AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT AT SENTENCING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined a waiver of appeal precluded an appeal alleging the violation of defendant’s right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing:

… [D]efendant’s contention that his CPL 380.50(1) right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing was violated is not reviewable because such a claim did not survive the valid appeal waiver. Although the statutory right is “deeply rooted” and “substantial,” its value is largely personal to defendant … . Defendant’s claim does not fall among the narrow class of nonwaivable defects that undermine “the integrity of our criminal justice system . . . [or] implicate . . . a public policy consideration that transcends the individual concerns of a particular defendant to obtain appellate review” … . Moreover, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, a valid unrestricted waiver of appeal elicited during a plea proceeding can preclude appellate review of claims that have “not yet reached full maturation,” including those arising during sentencing … , nor is this challenge to presentence procedures reviewable under the illegal sentence exception … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 5-6-21

 

/ ,

THE USE OF TRANSLATORS TO DOCUMENT INFORMATION IN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DID NOT RENDER THE INSTRUMENTS FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT BY ADDING A LAYER OF HEARSAY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the use of translators in documenting information in an accusatory instrument did not create an additional layer of hearsay. The three accusatory instruments at issue, therefore, were deemed facially sufficient. Two of the accusatory instruments did not refer to the use of a translator, and the third did:

… “[I]n evaluating the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument,” a court does “not look beyond its four corners (including supporting declarations appended thereto)” ( … see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1] [c] …). Courts must “not rely on external factors to create jurisdictional defects not evident from the face of the” accusatory instrument … . Instead, “[w]hether the allegation of an element of an offense is hearsay, rendering the information defective, is to be determined on a facial reading of the accusatory instrument” … ..

Defects that do not appear on the “the face of the” accusatory instrument are “latent deficienc[ies]” that do not require dismissal … . * * *

We conclude that, when evaluating the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, no hearsay defect exists where … the four corners of the instrument indicate only that an accurate, verbatim translation occurred, and the witness or complainant adopted the statement as their own by signing the instrument after the translation … . People v Slade, 2021 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 5-6-21

 

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