You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Suppression Should Not Have Been Granted Because the Officer Who Made the Vehicle Stop Had Died/Hearsay Evidence from a Police Officer Who Arrived at the Scene After the Stop and Spoke to the Deceased Officer Was Admissible at the Suppression Hearing

The Second Department determined the hearsay testimony of a police officer (Schmidt) who learned of the reason for the stop of defendant’s vehicle from another officer (Olivieri) was admissible in the suppression hearing.  Supreme Court had suppressed the evidence stemming from the stop because the officer who made the stop (Olivieri) had died and could not therefore be “confronted” at the hearing:

Pursuant to statute, “hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact” at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60[4]…). Thus, “[a] police witness at a suppression hearing may establish probable cause by personal knowledge, as well as by information supplied by fellow officers” … . Where the knowledge of the imparting officer is based on his or her first-hand observations, the People are not required to produce that officer at the suppression hearing … .

Here, Schmidt’s testimony established that the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was lawful, based upon the first-hand observations of Olivieri, which were imparted to Schmidt … . Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest also was established through Olivieri’s observations, as imparted to Schmidt, together with Schmidt’s own personal observations … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) does not require a different result. In Crawford, the Supreme Court considered whether particular evidence admitted at trial violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see id. at 38…), and did not address the admission of hearsay evidence in pretrial suppression hearings … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00786, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s Request for Substitution of Counsel After Trial Began

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not take any steps to determine the reasons for defendant’s request for new counsel after the trial had started:

Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court improperly denied his request for substitution of counsel without conducting any inquiry whatsoever, and without permitting defendant to explain, either orally or in writing, why such an inquiry might be necessary … . At the beginning of the fourth day of trial, defendant asked to speak to the court. In denying his request, the court clearly assumed that he wanted to make a statement pertaining to his defense, even after defendant indicated that the subject matter was “my attorney and advice” and that the attorney was not “doing his proper work.” Defendant then asked to hand up papers that defense counsel immediately identified as “a notice of motion for reassignment of counsel,” but the court refused to look at the papers, and stated, “I will not reassign counsel. The motion is denied.”

…In People v Sides (75 NY2d 822 [1990]), for instance, the trial court was found to have erred in failing to ask “even a single question” about the nature of the disagreement after both the defendant and his counsel spoke of a breakdown in communications and trust … . Here, the court did not even learn the nature of the disagreement, let alone ask any questions about it. While not all requests for new counsel contain the specific factual allegations to show that the complaints and request are “serious,” which then triggers the court’s obligation to make a “minimal inquiry” into the nature of the disagreement and its potential for resolution …, here defendant was not given an opportunity to make any allegations. This is not a situation where a defendant rested on unelaborated claims; the court expressly declined to listen to defendant or read his submissions … . People v McCummings, 2015 NY Slip Op 00610, 1st Dept 1-22-15

 

,

No Foundation Provided for Use of a Notarized Statement for Impeachment (As a Prior Inconsistent Statement)

The Second Department determined the trial court had properly prohibited the defense from cross-examining a complaining witness about a notarized statement the witness denied signing.  The court explained the foundation-requirements for admitting a prior inconsistent statement:

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding a notarized statement which she had denied signing, and for which the notary could not be located. “[T]here must be a proper foundation laid for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of a witness. In order to prevent surprise and give the witness the first opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency between his [or her] testimony at trial and his [or her] previous statements, he [or she] must first be questioned as to the time, place and substance of the prior statement” … . “If the witness does not admit that he [or she] signed the statement[ ], the genuineness of the signature can be proved by any one or in any legal way. Such proof enables the impeaching party to properly offer the paper in evidence as a part of his [or her] case or, with the permission of the court, at any other stage of the trial” … . Where, as here, the party seeking to admit the writing into evidence has not proven the genuineness of the signature, “the writing cannot be read to the jury, or, provided it can be produced, used as a basis for a cross-examination as to its contents until it is in evidence'” … . People v Haywood, 2015 NY Slip Op 00555, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Conviction Reversed—Court Denied For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror Without Eliciting an Unequivocal Assurance the Juror Will Be Impartial

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because an admittedly biased juror was not eliminated after defendant’s “for cause” challenge.  (Defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges.):

When a question is raised regarding a prospective juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict, the prospective juror must expressly state in unequivocal terms that “his prior state of mind concerning either the case or either of the parties will not influence his verdict, and he must also state that he will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . In considering whether such statements are unequivocal, the juror’s testimony must be taken as a whole, and where there remains any doubt, the prospective juror should be discharged for cause … . Thus, when a potential juror states that he or she questions or doubts that he or she can be fair in the case, the trial judge should either elicit some unequivocal assurance of the juror’s ability to be impartial or excuse the juror … .

Here, as the prospective juror stated that she could not believe that police officers would get on the witness stand and lie about a person selling drugs, the court erred in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause without first eliciting some unequivocal assurance of the juror’s ability to be impartial … . People v Harris, 2015 NY Slip Op 00554, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Second Department determined that the failure to notify the defendant prior his guilty plea (in 2000) could be the basis of deportation proceedings did not constitute ineffective of counsel:

On March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform noncitizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas. However, Padilla does not apply retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before Padilla was decided … . Without the benefit of the Padilla rule, the alleged failure of the defendant’s attorney to properly advise him of the possibility that he might be deported as a result of his plea does not constitute deficient performance under the United States or New York Constitutions. At the time that the defendant entered his plea of guilty in 2000, defense counsel’s performance was governed by the rule that “the failure of [defense] counsel to warn [a] defendant of the possibility of deportation [did not] constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” … . People v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 00563, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Error for Prosecutor to Imply that Communicating with an Attorney Manifests a Consciousness of Guilt (Error Deemed Harmless Here)

The Second department noted that the prosecutor’s comment implying that communicating with an attorney manifests a consciousness of guilt was error:

In response to evidence proffered by the People that the defendant relocated to a motel after the subject shooting, the defendant called as a witness an attorney whom she had retained after the shooting. To rebut the People’s theory that the relocation indicated a consciousness of guilt, the defendant elicited testimony from that attorney that the defendant intended to surrender to the police, but that the police arrested her before she was able to do so. During summation, the prosecutor posed the rhetorical question: “[I]f you didn’t do anything and you don’t know that detectives are looking for you in respect to a shooting, why did you get an attorney?” The defendant correctly contends that this comment was improper, since the defendant’s retention of an attorney was not probative of her consciousness of guilt … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and otherwise does not require reversal … . People v Credle, 2015 NY Slip Op 00548, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

The Third Department determined the police properly made a warrantless entry of the apartment where defendant [Anderson] was staying based upon the consent of a “lease enforcement officer” who believed the apartment was occupied by “squatters.”  The motion to suppress the weapon found near the defendant was, therefore, properly denied:

…John Downey, a lease enforcement officer, informed a police detective that he believed that Anderson’s apartment was vacant and that tenants frequently abandoned their units in the apartment building without providing notice. Downey further explained that he was authorized to enter apartments in order to ensure that they are secure and not occupied by squatters. Downey averred that he provided law enforcement officers with a key to the apartment because he was concerned that someone other than Anderson may have been staying there. When law enforcement arrived at the apartment and knocked on the door, there was no response and no noise was detected from inside the residence. Although it became obvious to the officers, after having entered the apartment, that it was not vacant, inasmuch as an objective view of the evidence adequately demonstrated that the police reasonably relied in good faith upon Downey’s apparent authority to allow entry into the apartment, County Court properly found that the warrantless entry –and resulting seizure of the gun that was in plain view–was not illegal… . People v Edwards, 2015 NY Slip Op 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

,

Even Though the Landlords Maintained Offices Adjacent to the Leased Property (a Restaurant), the Plaintiff Was Not Able to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Landlords Retained Control Over the Leased Premises Such that the Landlords Would Be Liable for an Assault by Employees and Patrons of the Tenant-Restaurant

The Second Department determined that out-of-possession landlords (AYT and 6010) could not be held liable for an assault by employees and patrons of the tenant restaurant, even though the landlords maintained offices adjacent to the rented property:

An owner is obligated to take reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risk of criminal acts and make the premises safe for visitors when the owner is aware, or should be aware, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third parties that would endanger visitors (…see generally Restatement [Second] of Torts: Negligence § 344). To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location … .

However, an out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on the leased premises due to the criminal acts of third parties unless it has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to provide security … .   Here, the defendants … established, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords, and that they did not retain control over the premises and were not contractually obligated to provide security. The mere fact that Sam Fridman, the principal of AYT, had an office “right next door” to the subject premises for approximately 15 years prior the incident, and Abraham Sprei, the principal of 6010, maintained a plumbing business adjacent to the premises, was not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether AYT and 6010 retained control of the premises  Tambriz v PGK Luncheonette Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00356, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, , ,

Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment—Question of Fact Raised Whether Criminal Act by Defendant’s Employee Was Foreseeable

Plaintiff’s child was injured when assaulted by an employee of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) during the course of a NYCTA community service program.  The Second Department determined defendant could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the actions of the employee were outside the scope of employment.  However, the cause of action for negligent supervision properly survived the motion for summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the criminal act of the employee was foreseeable:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the NYCTA demonstrated that Clay’s conduct clearly was not in furtherance of the NYCTA’s business and was a departure from the scope of his employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives … . * * *

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the NYCTA’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it negligently supervised the plaintiff’s child. The standard for determining whether a duty to supervise a minor was breached is “whether a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the identical situation and armed with the same information would invariably have provided greater supervision” … . “Where third-party criminal acts intervene between defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s injuries, the causal connection may be severed, precluding liability. The criminal intervention of third parties may, however, be a reasonably foreseeable’ consequence of circumstances created by the defendant” … . Mayo v New York City Tr Auth, 2015 NY Slip OP 00342, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

,

Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless

The Second Department determined defendant’s pre-Miranda statements, as well as his post-Miranda written statement, should have been suppressed because the defendant was in custody and interrogated before he waived his right to remain silent.  Defendant had been stopped by two police cars, one of which cut off defendant’s lane of travel. Defendant then consented to going to the police station where he was placed in a locked room and subjected to accusatory questioning.  (The court ultimately determined the error was harmless, however):

Contrary to the suppression court’s determination, the statements made by the defendant at the police station should have been suppressed as the product of custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings. “Miranda warnings need not be given until both the elements of police custody’ and interrogation’ are present” … . The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact … . In deciding whether a defendant was in custody before receiving Miranda warnings, “the subjective beliefs of the defendant are not to be the determinative factor” … . Nor does the determination turn on the subjective intent of the police officer … . Rather, the test is “what a reasonable man [or woman], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant’s position” … . “[T]he term interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect” … .

Here, a reasonable, innocent person would not have believed that he or she was free to leave the police station at the time the defendant made his oral statements to the police … . Moreover, the questions by the police were accusatory in nature, rather than merely investigatory, and were designed to elicit an incriminating response … . Accordingly, the oral statements made by the defendant at the police station were the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and should have been suppressed. Furthermore, the written statement by the defendant, although created after Miranda warnings were issued, also should have been suppressed, as there was no attenuation between the statements that were obtained unlawfully and the written statement … . People v Reardon, 2015 NY Slip Op 00394, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

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