You are here: / Criminal Law
,

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in the absence of a fact-finding proceeding, father should not have been deemed to have derivatively neglected his children based solely upon his guilty plea to endangering the welfare of one of his children:

​

“A criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i) defines a neglected child as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise a minimum degree of care” … by, inter alia, “unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof.” Here, since the father’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was based upon the same acts alleged to constitute neglect, the father’s conviction established, prima facie, that Blima M. was a neglected child … . …

However, the Family Court erred in granting that branch of ACS’s [Administration for Children’s Services’] motion which was for summary judgment determining that the father derivatively neglected Hersh M., Jacob M., Aron M., Moshe M., and Dina M. While proof of the neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the neglect of any other child of, or the legal responsibility of, the respondent … , a finding of abuse or neglect as to one sibling does not mandate a finding of derivative abuse or neglect as to the other siblings … . Matter of Blima M. (Samuel M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 03954, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/CRIMINAL LAW (ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)

TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Third Department determined the prosecutor should not have elicited testimony from an investigator about defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony about defendant’s invocation of his right to silence and to comment on that testimony in summation. “[I]t is axiomatic that when a defendant invokes his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination, the People may not use his or her silence against him or her on their direct case”… . The principle applies when a defendant unequivocally states his or her desire to halt all questioning, even if he or she has previously responded to other questions … . A State Police investigator testified at trial that he interviewed defendant after his arrest and read him his Miranda rights, which defendant stated that he understood. Defendant then willingly answered a series of questions about various topics. However, when asked if he had punched or pushed the trooper, defendant responded that “he didn’t want to say any more.” During summation, the prosecutor remarked upon this testimony, noting that when defendant was asked about striking the trooper, he had not denied that he had done so or offered an explanation, but instead had stated that he did not want to say anything else. Defendant’s counsel objected twice to these remarks, but was overruled. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant’s statement that he did not want to say any more was an “unequivocal and unqualified invocation of [the] right” to remain silent … . People v Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03804, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/SELF-INCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO AVOID (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)

,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY THE SAME COURT.

The Second Department determined father could not move to modify an order of protection issued by the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) court in connection with a criminal conviction. The order of protection could be appealed as part of an appeal of the conviction, but the Criminal Procedure Law does not provide for modification of the order. In addition, an order of protection issued by the same court in related child neglect proceedings could not change the terms of the “criminal” order of protection unless that order indicated is was subject to subsequent orders of protection (which was not the case here):

​

“[W]here a criminal court order of protection bars contact between a parent and child, the parent may not obtain visitation until the order of protection is vacated or modified by the criminal court”… . The criminal court has authority to determine whether its order of protection is “subject to” subsequent orders pertaining to custody and visitation, and can decline to amend an order of protection to so provide … . Here, the order of protection … that was entered in the criminal action did not state that it was “subject to” subsequent orders pertaining to custody and visitation. Matter of Utter v Usher, 2017 NY Slip Op 03760, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

FAMILY LAW (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT, ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)

​

, ,

DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL.

The Second Department determined the Department of Motor Vehicles’ finding that petitioner (driver) refused to submit to the chemical (blood alcohol) test after a vehicle stop must be annulled. Although the driver was warned that a refusal required the revocation of his license, he was not told that waiting for a return call from his attorney had been deemed a refusal by the arresting officer:

​

A motorist under arrest based on an alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 may not condition his or her consent to a chemical test on first being permitted to consult with counsel … . Nonetheless, the consequences of refusing to accede to a chemical test may be imposed only if the motorist, after being adequately warned of those consequences, has refused to accede to the test (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][b], [f]). The adequacy of the warning is the same for the consequence imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(b) (suspension and ultimate revocation of the motorist’s driver license) and the consequence imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f) (admissibility of evidence of refusal at a subsequent criminal trial) … . Here, the undisputed evidence at the hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(c) failed to establish that the petitioner was warned that his time for deliberation had expired and his further request to consult with counsel, which the police sought to accommodate, would be deemed a refusal to accede to the chemical test … . We emphasize that our determination is not based on any violation of any purported right to counsel … , but on the adequacy of the warnings that the request to consult with counsel would constitute a refusal to accede to the chemical test … . Matter of Lamb v Egan, 2017 NY Slip Op 03751, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, CHEMICAL TEST, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, CHEMICAL TEST, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (CHEMICAL TEST, REFUSAL, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/CHEMICAL TEST (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, REFUSAL, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 42 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under 18 USC 1983, against the county, for violation of his right to a speedy trial:

We reject the County’s argument that it cannot be held liable pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for the alleged misconduct of the office of the District Attorney. Where, as here, a complaint alleges a failure to train and supervise employees regarding legal obligations, “liability for the District Attorney’s actions in his role as a manager of the District Attorney’s office rests with the county” …  and a claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 may therefore be maintained against the County for the conduct of the District Attorney’s office insofar as the District Attorney acted as a County policymaker … . Moreover, here, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the District Attorney’s office failed to train and supervise its assistant district attorneys with respect to the constitutional speedy trial rights of the accused persons with whom they interacted, to the extent that they manifested deliberate indifference to those rights … . Victor v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 03796, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (18 USC 1983) (SPEEDY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)/SPEEDY TRIAL (CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER 18 USC 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL)

​

,

PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial:

​

… [T]he prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness when he addressed the impeachment of one of the People’s main witnesses, a sister of the complainant (hereinafter the sister). During cross-examination, the sister was impeached by inconsistent testimony she gave in the grand jury proceeding. During summation, the prosecutor argued to the jury that defense counsel had “selected certain portions out of context in the grand jury minutes,” and that the jury “didn’t get the entire grand jury minutes” … . These comments were particularly prejudicial. The sister’s testimony, and thus her credibility, were crucial to the People’s proof against the defendant, which was less than overwhelming. The prosecutor’s comments suggested, without any evidentiary support, that the jury should disregard the sister’s grand jury testimony, in which she failed to name the defendant as a participant in the subject assault, because there was more to the testimony than they knew.

In addition, in reference to the father of the complainant and the sister, who was present during the subject assault but was not called to testify, resulting in a missing witness charge, the prosecutor improperly suggested, and invited the jury to speculate, that the father would have given testimony supportive of his children had he been called to testify … . People v Ramirez, 2017 NY Slip Op 03780, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)

JUROR MISCONDUCT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, JURORS SHARED INFORMATION FROM A FORMER DA AND A FORMER POLICE OFFICER DURING DELIBERATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined juror misconduct required a new trial. During deliberations two jurors shared information concerning trial evidence which was provided in one case by a former assistant district attorney and in the other by a retired police officer:

​

… [O]ne of the jurors improperly shared the views of her husband, who was a retired assistant district attorney, by telling the other jurors that he told her that everything the prosecutors said was true, that law enforcement officers would not lie, that the accomplice could never have come up with such an extravagant story in such a limited amount of time, and that crime scene videos didn’t show everything. Moreover, the evidence established that the juror’s comments regarding her husband’s statements influenced one juror who testified at the hearing. Additionally, another juror testified that during deliberations she sent a text message to her uncle, a retired police officer, and asked him if a nine millimeter bullet could fit into a .40 caliber gun. Her uncle told her “no,” and the following day she shared that information with the jury. People v Plowden, 2017 NY Slip Op 03779, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR MISCONDUCT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, JURORS SHARED INFORMATION FROM A FORMER DA AND A FORMER POLICE OFFICER DURING DELIBERATIONS)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR MISCONDUCT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, JURORS SHARED INFORMATION FROM A FORMER DA AND A FORMER POLICE OFFICER DURING DELIBERATIONS)

​

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION.

The Fourth Department held the case in reserve to allow County Court to rule on other issues raised in opposition to defendant’s suppression motion, but specifically found County Court’s ruling the statement was admissible as “spontaneous” was error:

“Volunteered statements are admissible provided the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity and [the statements were] not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” … . Such statements must be proven to be “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause, . . . [and] it must at least be shown that they were in no way the product of an interrogation environment’ ” … . “Rather, [the statement] must satisfy the test for a blurted out admission, a statement which is in effect forced upon the officer” … .

Here, defendant’s statement was provoked or encouraged by the presentation or discussion of evidence suggestive of his criminal conduct, and we thus conclude that it cannot be deemed “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause” … . “Although there may be other reasons to justify the denial of defendant’s motion, the only issues that we may consider on this appeal are those that may have adversely affected the appellant’ ” … . We therefore hold this case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to rule upon any other issues raised by the People in opposition to the motion. People v Ibarrondo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03643, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)

,

AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES.

The Fourth Department, after conducting a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the proof was not sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant shared the intent of his son who stabbed the victim eight times. Therefore the assault first conviction was reversed. The proof indicated the defendant may have been away from the victim, looking for his dog, when his son stabbed the victim:

Although “all of the elements [of the crime] and necessary findings are supported by some credible evidence,” we conclude that an acquittal would not have been unreasonable … . We therefore must “independently assess all the proof; substitute [our] own credibility determinations for those made by the jury [if necessary]; determine whether the verdict was factually correct; and acquit . . . defendant if [we] are not convinced that the jury was justified in finding that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt”… . Here, defendant was charged as an accessory, and thus the People had to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [defendant] acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime”  … . We conclude that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with the requisite mental culpability to commit assault in the first degree by causing serious physical injury to the victim by the use of a dangerous instrument, or that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided his son in committing the offense … . People v Farley, 2017 NY Slip Op 03634, 4th Dept 5-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, ACCESSORY LIABILITY, AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES)/ACCOMPLICE, ACCESSORY LIABILITY (AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES)

,

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, OFFICER WAS TOLD WHO THE POLICE WERE SEEKING TO IDENTIFY BEFORE VIEWING A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL IN THE MOTION PAPERS, IT IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE COUNTY COURT ADDRESSED IT. 

The Fourth Department, reserving on the appeal until County Court rules on other issues related to the suppression of the identification of the defendant, determined County Court erred when it concluded the identification of the defendant by a parole officer viewing a surveillance video was not an unduly suggestive procedure. The Fourth Department first noted that the issue was not preserved for appeal by the motion papers, but was appealable because County Court considered the issue in its findings. The Fourth Department held the procedure unduly suggestive because the parole officer was told who the police were seeking to identify before viewing the video:

… [W]e agree with defendant that, contrary to the court’s determination that “[t]here was no influence or suggestion” by the investigator, the evidence establishes that the investigator suggested to the parole officer prior to her identification that the person depicted committing the robbery on the surveillance video was defendant … . Instead of requesting the parole officer’s assistance in identifying someone from the video without preemptively disclosing the subject of his investigation, the investigator engaged in a conversation “about her being a parole officer for [defendant].” During the conversation, the investigator “asked [the parole officer] if she was familiar with [defendant].” The parole officer responded that she had “lots of contact” with defendant, so the investigator proceeded to ask her to “come down and view a video.” The investigator subsequently met with the parole officer at the police department and asked her to view the video to determine if she recognized anyone, and the parole officer identified defendant as the person committing the robbery. We conclude that the investigator, by contacting the parole officer and inquiring about her familiarity with defendant prior to the parole officer’s viewing of the video, engaged in … undue suggestiveness … inasmuch as his comments improperly suggested to the parole officer that the person she was about to view was a particular acquaintance of hers, i.e., defendant … . People v Gambale, 2017 NY Slip Op 03658, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

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