You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANT PLANNED WITH TWO OTHERS TO ROB THE VICTIM; THE FACTS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS MERELY PRESENT DURING THE ROBBERY AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE STOLEN CASH DID NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE ACCOMPLICES’ INTENT; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing County Court’s dismissal of the robbery indictment, determined the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s liability as an accomplice. Defendant planned to rob the victim with two others. Defendant knew the victim and set up a meeting with him. As planned, defendant’s accomplices robbed the victim at gunpoint during the meeting with defendant. Defendant later picked up the two accomplices, who were still wearing masks. Defendant convinced the victim to not report the robbery. $3000 was stolen, but defendant received none of it:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s commission of the charged crimes as an accomplice. The defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the commission of the robbery established his shared intent to commit the crime of robbery … . People v Symns, 2026 NY Slip Op 03325, Second Dept 5-27-26

Practice Point: Mere presence during a robbery is not enough for accomplice liability. But here, although he did not participate in the theft of the victim’s cash at gunpoint and did not receive any of the cash, defendant participated in the planning of the robbery, transported his accomplices to and from the robbery scene, and arranged the meeting with the victim at the robbery scene. His actions before and after the robbery demonstrated he shared the intent of the persons who executed the robbery and therefore defendant was properly indicted as an accomplice.

 

,

THE MURDER TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 20; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 21 AND INDICTED ON THAT CHARGE ALONE; SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON FORENSIC EVIDENCE (BALLISTIC AND DNA), DEFENDANT WAS SEPARATELY INDICTED FOR MURDER COMMITTED WITH THE SAME WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 20; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY INDICTED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THE TWO OFFENSES WERE NOT PART OF “THE SAME CRIMINAL TRANSACTION” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant was properly separately indicted for (1) possession of a weapon and (2) using that weapon to commit murder. Criminal Procedure Law 40.40(2) prohibits separate indictments for joinable offenses. The majority concluded that the possession-of-a-weapon was not part of the “same criminal transaction” as the murder:

Defendant contends that County Court properly dismissed the murder indictment under CPL 40.40 (2) and, as relevant here, argues that the charges were part of the same criminal transaction because there was no break in possession between her use of the weapon in the murder on November 20, 2021 and her possession of the weapon the next day, November 21. The prosecution responds that the passage of time between defendant’s completion of the homicide on November 20 and her subsequent apprehension on November 21 while in possession of the firearm used to commit the offense separates the criminal acts into different criminal incidents, allowing separate prosecution of the possession and the murder charges. The prosecution has the better argument. We conclude that the Appellate Division properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and reinstated the murder indictment. People v Harris, 2026 NY Slip Op 03260, CtApp 5-26-26

Practice Point: Here criminal possession of a weapon on November 21 and murder using that same weapon on November 20 were deemed offenses which were not part of the same criminal transaction. Therefore the two offenses were properly indicted separately. The separate indictments did not violate the prohibition of separate indictments for joinable offenses in CPL 40.40(2).

 

, , , , ,

MOTHER STABBED HER TWO CHILDREN AND FILED AN INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL; THE SURVIVING DAUGHTER AND FATHER SUED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL ALLEGING MOTHER WAS NEGLIGENTLY TREATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE STABBING; MOTHER WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT AND RELATED PRIVILEGES BY FILING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF MOTHER’S MEDICAL RECORDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined non-party mother had waived the physician-patient and related privileges by filing a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the prior criminal trial. Mother had stabbed her two children. The instant personal injury action is brought by the surviving child and her father alleging mother was negligently treated by defendant hospital shortly before the stabbing. The plaintiffs sought discovery of mother’s medical records:

Generally, medical records are protected from disclosure (see CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege]; 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c] [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities]). However, a patient can waive those privileges “either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue” … . However, simply denying the allegations in a complaint does not constitute such a waiver … . * * *

… [W]aiver of the physician-patient and related privileges in a criminal action generally carries over to a subsequent civil action, provided the defendant’s mental condition remains at issue … . * * *

We are of the view that … the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the criminal case was sufficient to demonstrate that [mother]  placed her mental condition at issue so as to waive her privilege to confidentiality of her medical, psychiatric, and mental health records maintained by [defendant]. . S.M. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Filing a notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in a criminal trial waives the physician-patient and related privileges and the waiver carries over to a subsequent related civil action.

 

,

THE ABSENCE OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED; THE CORRECTION OFFICER’S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS CONTRADICTED BY PETITIONER AND THREE WITNESSES; THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORRECTION OFFICER, WHICH WAS CREDITED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, LACKED SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF RELIABILITY TO SATISFY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversed the finding that petitioner-inmate violated prison disciplinary rules  There was no body-worn camera footage of the incident, and no explanation for its absence. A single corrections officer wrote a report about the incident which was credited by the Hearing Officer. In her report the officer claimed petitioner “threw” a chair onto the floor and was yelling at other prisoners. The petitioner and three prisoners testified that petitioner did not act in anger, was not yelling at other prisoners, and the chair had been knocked or tipped over. The Third Department concluded the evidence was insufficient to support any disciplinary-rule violations:

… [W]here, as here, the record presents competing versions of a discrete event and the determination turns on the acceptance of one account over another, the reliability of the credited testimony must be assessed in context. That context includes the absence of any objective documentation of the incident where there is every reason to believe that such proof should have existed.

At the time of the subject incident, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had implemented a body-worn camera policy pursuant to internal directive, reflecting an institutional recognition that recording such encounters is imperative for both safety and transparency … . We need not decide the force of that directive to hold that it informs the nature of proof that may reasonably be expected in incidents of this kind. In the same vein, it must also be observed that, since the subject incident, the Legislature has codified the requirement of body-worn cameras in correctional settings … , thus underscoring the State’s recognition that objective evidence of interactions involving incarcerated individuals is not only critical but readily obtainable … .

Here, no such objective evidence was produced. Importantly, the record is entirely silent as to whether recording devices were being properly utilized and, if not, why not … . In the face of that evidentiary gap, we find that the credited testimony lacks sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the substantial evidence standard. We therefore reverse. Matter of McPherson v Hill, 2026 NY Slip Op 03216, Third Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: In prison disciplinary hearings, the unexplained absence of body-worn camera footage of an incident at which the testifying correction officer was present may call into question the reliability of the correction officer’s testimony.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S AVERMENTS IN HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT HEARINGS ON WHETHER HER PARTICIPATION IN THE OFFENSE WAS THE RESULT OF HER BEING A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND WHETHER HER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HER OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HER PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. The motion to vacate argued defendant participated in the offense as a result of being a victim of sex trafficking within the meaning of CPL 440.10. In addition, defendant argued her counsel was ineffective in failing to inform her of the deportation consequences of her guilty plea:

…. [T]he defendant averred … that the underlying offense occurred within two to five years of her emigration to the United States, that she was initially hired to provide massages that did not require her to perform sex acts, and that after approximately two months, her boss moved her to another location and instructed her to perform sex acts on clients. The defendant further averred that she twice attempted to leave, but that each time her boss threatened to report the defendant’s activities to either her husband or the authorities. Moreover, in addition to her affidavit, the defendant submitted a letter from the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance dated November 4, 2022, which stated that the defendant “me[t] the criteria for confirmation as a human trafficking victim in New York State.” Under these circumstances, the defendant’s allegations were sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether her participation in the offense underlying her conviction was the result of having been a victim of sex trafficking. * * *

The defendant’s averments, including that she feared for her safety if she returned to China, sufficiently alleged that a decision to reject the plea offer would have been rational … . Therefore, the defendant was also entitled to a hearing on that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment on the ground that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by her counsel’s allegedly erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of her plea … . People v L.F., 2026 NY Slip Op 03186, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: There are statutory grounds for vacation of a judgment of conviction because defendant’s participation in the offense was the result having been a victim of sex trafficking. (CPL 440.10).​

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS FOLLOWING THE SHOOTER’S CAR, WAS AWARE THE SHOOTER INTENDED TO KILL A RIVAL GANG MEMBER, OR EVEN AWARE THE SHOOTER WAS ARMED; THEREFORE THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal should have been granted. Defendant was following the shooter’s car when the shooter shot and killed a member of a rival gang. There was no evidence defendant knew the shooter intended to kill or even that the shooter was armed. Therefore the evidence did not demonstrate that defendant shared the shooter’s intent to kill:

While the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, showed that the defendant conspired with others to retaliate against rival gang members, it failed to establish that the defendant entered into a conspiracy with the goal of committing murder in the second degree … . The People failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence establishing that the defendant was aware that Kelson or Oliveras were armed or had the intent to commit murder or that the defendant, in fact, joined a conspiracy with the goal of committing murder … . For the same reasons, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant believed that he was rendering aid to a person who intended to commit murder. People v Hewitt, 2026 NY Slip Op 03184, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary for a conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction. There must be evidence the defendant shared the killer’s intent, not the case here.

 

,

THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against the owner of a one or two-family dwelling should not have been dismissed on the ground that owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not control the work, are exempt form Labor Law liability. The exemption depends on whether the work serves a residential or commercial purpose. Here, without describing the facts, the Second Department held there was a question of fact about whether the work served a residential or commercial purpose:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose nondelegable duties upon property owners to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in certain activities. Both statutes exempt from liability “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (id. §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However “‘[r]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, “[a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here … the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), including whether the premises had a commercial purpose and whether the work the plaintiff performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … . Moreno v Hossain, 2026 NY Slip Op 03159, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: The exemption from Labor Law liability for owners of one and two-family homes does not apply when the purpose of the work is commercial, renovation for sale or rental, for example.

 

,

THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL HAD NO SAFETY RAILINGS AND THE SCAFFOLD WOBBLED AND COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THE KICKBACK FROM A HAMMER DRILL PLAINTIFF WAS USING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff demonstrated the scaffold from which he fell did not have safety railings and the scaffold wobbled and collapsed because of the kickback from a hammer drill he was using:

… [T]he plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) through his deposition testimony that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold that lacked safety rails and that he was not otherwise provided an appropriate safety device. The plaintiff further testified that the kickback from the hammer drill he was using caused the scaffolding to wobble and collapse, proximately causing both his fall and his subsequent injuries. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Correa v NY Developers & Mgt., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03143, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: A fall from a scaffold with no safety railings warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1); a fall from a scaffold which wobbles and collapses because of the kickback from a hammer drill similarly warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1).​

 

, ,

THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, FINDING THAT DEFENDANT UNDULY INFLUENCED DECEDENT TO NAME HIM AS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY OF TWO BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS; THE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE PROOF OF UNDUE INFLUENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant unduly influenced the decedent to remove plaintiff as a beneficiary of two brokerage accounts and name defendant as the sole beneficiary. The court explained the shifting burdens of proof:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial” … .

“Generally, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “Where, however, the existence of a confidential relationship is established, the burden shifts to the beneficiary of the transaction to show that the transaction is fair and free from undue influence” … . “‘In order to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship, there must be evidence of circumstances that demonstrate inequality or a controlling influence'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the defendant … . * * *

As a result, the burden of proving undue influence remained upon the plaintiff … . * * *

… [P]laintiff presented only conclusory and speculative evidence that the defendant exercised undue influence over the decedent … . “‘[A] mere showing of opportunity and even of a motive to exercise undue influence does not justify a submission of that issue to the jury, unless there is in addition evidence that such influence was actually utilized'” … . Collins v Denaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 03142, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into  the shifting burdens of proof applied to a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made by a defendant after a plaintiff’s verdict. Here the appellate court determined the conclusory and speculative evidence did not support the jury’s verdict.

 

,

IF A LADDER IS NOT SECURED AND IT MOVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT MOVES BEFORE OR AFTER PLAINTIFF LOSES HIS BALANCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IS WARRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED STATEMENT IN AN UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL RECORD WHICH WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT WAS INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the fact that the ladder was not secured and moved warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, and (2) plaintiff’s purported remark which was included in an uncertified medical record and was not germane to treatment was inadmissible:

Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell because he lost his balance and the ladder on which he was standing shook established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, “[i]t is irrelevant whether plaintiff initially lost his balance before or after the ladder [shook] because . . . the ladder failed to remain steady under plaintiff[ ] . . . as he performed his work” … . Nor is this “a case where an issue of fact is raised as to whether plaintiff simply lost his balance or footing while working on a properly secured ladder. Indeed, plaintiff’s fall was directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” … . “Defendants were obligated to ensure that the ladder was secured to something stable” … . “Where a ladder is offered as a work-site safety device, it must be sufficient to provide proper protection. It is well settled that failure to properly secure a ladder, to ensure that it remain[s] steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)”  … . …

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. The only evidence on which defendants relied was a recorded statement purportedly made by plaintiff after his accident that appears on a single page from his medical records. However, not only was the medical record uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, but plaintiff’s description of the accident in that statement was not germane to his diagnosis or treatment … . Diaz v Boston Props., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03114, First Dept 5-19-26

​Practice Point: Ladders which are not secured to something stable violate Labor Law 240(1).

 

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