You are here: / Evidence
,

SUPPRESSION OF THE WEAPON WAS PROPERLY DENIED, BUT DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ADMITTING POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE IS RARELY APPLIED TO UPHOLD A GUILTY PLEA WHERE SUPPRSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED THE PLEA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea to possession of a weapon could not have been affected by the failure to suppress his statement admitting possession of the weapon. The Fourth Department determined the statement was a product of unwarned custodial interrogation:

‘The 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’ ” … . “Although the police may ask a suspect preliminary questions at a crime scene in order to find out what is transpiring . . . , where criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . Here, after defendant had been restrained and handcuffed, an officer asked defendant, “what’s going on? Are you all right? Are you okay?” Defendant responded, “you saw what I had on me. I was going to do what I had to do.” We conclude that the interaction between defendant and the officer “had traveled far beyond a ‘threshold crime scene inquiry’ ” and, under the circumstances, it was likely that the officer’s particular questions ” ‘would elicit evidence of a crime and, indeed, it did elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . …

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he [or she] states or reveals his [or her] reason for pleading guilty” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379-380 [1978]). “The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and [the Court of Appeals has] recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea’ ” … . People v Robles, 2022 NY Slip Op 07336, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: This case is rare exception to the rule that a guilty plea will not stand if a suppression motion should have been granted. Here the appellate division determined suppression of defendant’s statement admitting possession of the weapon would not have affected his decision to plead guilty because the weapon itself had not been suppressed. There was a dissent.

 

,

THE AMENDED STATUTE CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT BASED ON MARIHUANA USE WENT INTO EFFECT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Family Court, determined whether mother neglected the children within the meaning of the statute as amended by the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act required remittal:

“The Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act …  amended Family [Court] Act § 1046 (a) (iii) … by specifically foreclosing a prima facie neglect finding based solely upon the use of marihuana, while still allowing for consideration of the use of marihuana to establish neglect, provided ‘[that there is] a separate finding that the child’s physical[,] mental or emotional condition was impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired’ ” … . The amendment to section 1046 (a) (iii) went into effect … two days before the court rendered its decision in this case and, “[a]s a general matter, a case must be decided upon the law as it exists at the time of the decision” … . Inasmuch as petitioner’s presentation of evidence was based on the state of the law at the time of the hearing, however, petitioner may not have fully explored the issue of impairment. We therefore remit the matter to Family Court to reopen the fact-finding hearing on the issue whether the children’s condition was impaired or at imminent risk of impairment as a result of the mother’s use of marihuana … . Matter of Gina R. (Christina R.), 2022 NY Slip Op 07321, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The Family Court Act was amended to prohibit a finding of neglect based solely on marihuana use unless there is a finding the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition was impaired or in danger of being impaired by the marihuana use.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER HAD SUFFICIENT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO VISUALLY ESTIMATE THE SPEED OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SPEEDING CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People did not demonstrate the defendant was speeding. No radar gun was used and the officer estimated defendant’s speed. The People did not demonstrate the officer had sufficient training and experience to support the speed-estimate:

At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he stopped the vehicle after he visually estimated defendant’s speed at 82 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone, and there was no testimony that the officer used a radar gun to establish defendant’s speed. While it is well-settled that a qualified police officer’s testimony that he or she visually estimated the speed of a defendant’s vehicle may be sufficient to establish that a defendant exceeded the speed limit … , here, the People failed to establish the officer’s training and qualifications to support the officer’s visual estimate of the speed of defendant’s vehicle … . Thus, inasmuch as the People failed to meet their burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in stopping defendant’s vehicle in the first instance, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence and defendant’s statements obtained as a result of the traffic stop. Because our determination results in the suppression of all evidence supporting the crime charged, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Reedy, 2022 NY Slip Op 07397, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Although a police officer’s visual estimate of a vehicle’s speed may be sufficient to support a speeding conviction, the People must show the officer had sufficient training and experience to make the speed-estimate, which was lacking in this case.

 

,

AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion when they parked behind the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger such that the driver could not leave the area. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted:

Police officer testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the time the officers made the initial stop, they were responding to the sound of multiple gunshots that had originated at or near the gas station, which was known to be a high crime area. The officers also testified, however, that at no time did they visually observe the source of the gunshots, and they did not see any shots emanating from the area where defendant’s vehicle was parked. The officers’ attention was drawn to defendant’s vehicle because, at the time they arrived on the scene, it had collided with another vehicle as it tried to leave the area. Defendant’s vehicle was one of a number of vehicles and pedestrians that the police saw trying to leave the gas station due to the ongoing gunfire. Under those circumstances—i.e., where the police are unable to pinpoint the source of the gunfire, and the individuals in defendant’s vehicle are not the only potential suspects present at the scene—the evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion that the individuals in defendant’s vehicle had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime … . On the record before us, defendant’s vehicle was, at most, “simply a vehicle that was in the general vicinity of the area where the shots were heard,” which is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion … . People v Singletary, 2022 NY Slip Op 07392, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Parking a police car behind a car such that the car cannot leave is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place.

 

, ,

AT THE TIME DEFENDANT RAN AS THE POLICE APPROACHED THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE POLICE WERE GOING TO CITE DEFENDANT FOR TRESPASS OR VIOLATION OF AN OPEN-CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION BY RUNNING; DEFENDANT’S RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST; THE PEOPLE’S ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE CAUSE ARGUMENT (TRESPASS AND OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION), ALTHOUGH PRESENTED TO THE SUPPRESSION COURT, WAS NOT RULED ON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration. The People’s alternative argument (the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for trespass and violation of an open-container law), made in a post-suppression-hearing memo, could not be considered on appeal because the suppression court did not rule on it. The police approached defendant as he was sitting at a picnic table on vacant property drinking from a cup. As the police approached, defendant got up from the table and ran:

… [A]lthough the officers testified that they were planning to issue citations for violation of the open container ordinance as they approached the picnic table, there is no evidence that, when defendant jumped up from the table and attempted to run away, the officers were in the process of issuing the citations … or that they had given any directive for defendant to remain in place while they issued such citations … . The officers thus had no reasonable basis to believe that defendant had the requisite intent—i.e., the conscious objective—to prevent them from issuing citations … . * * *

… [T]he court’s determination that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration, and that the searches and seizures were incident to a lawful arrest for that offense, “was the only issue decided adversely to defendant at the trial court” … . That determination “alone constituted the ratio decidendi for upholding the legality of the [searches and seizures] and denying the suppression of evidence” (id.). Our “review, therefore, is confined to that issue alone” … . People v Tubbins, 2022 NY Slip Op 07317, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here defendant did not know the police were going to cite him for trespass and an open-container violation at the time he ran. Therefore his running was not obstruction of governmental administration and did not provide probable cause for arrest on that ground.

Practice Point: The People’s alternative argument that the police had probable cause to arrest for trespass and an open-container violation was presented to the suppression court but was not ruled on. Therefore the appellate court could not consider it.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant in this pedestrian-vehicle-accident case was not required to disclose privileged medical (mental health) information which was provided to the sentencing court in the related criminal case as a “mitigation report:”

“CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes discovery of a party’s mental or physical condition when that party’s condition has been placed in controversy” … . Nevertheless, even where a defendant’s mental or physical condition is in controversy, discovery will be precluded if the information falls within the physician-patient privilege and the defendant has not waived that privilege … . Where the physician-patient privilege has not been waived, the party asserting the privilege may “avoid revealing the substance of confidential communications made to [his or] her physician, but may not refuse to testify as to relevant medical incidents or facts concerning [himself or] herself” … .

We agree with defendant that he did not waive the physician-patient privilege by disclosing his mental health information in the sentencing phase of the related criminal proceeding. Here, defendant submitted the mitigation report in the criminal proceeding for the court’s consideration in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Thus, this is not a case where a criminal defendant waived any privilege applicable to that defendant’s mental health records by raising a justification or other affirmative defense to be litigated in the criminal proceeding … . Instead, the mitigation report was prepared for and “submitted directly to the court[] in connection with the question of sentence” and, as a result, the mitigation report is “confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1] …). Johnson v Amadorzabala,, 2022 NY Slip Op 07355, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The defendant in this personal injury case did not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting mental health records to the sentencing court in the related criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the mitigation report was for the judge’s eyes only and was confidential.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER, A FORMER CORRECTION OFFICER SEEKING REINSTATEMENT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION WHICH FOUND HIM UNFIT; THE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS, SIGNED BY PETITIONER, WAS A NULLITY (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to discovery of the records of the psychological examination which found him unfit to serve as a correction officer. The court held that the waiver of the right to review such documents (signed by the petitioner at the outset) was a nullity:

… [W]e do not agree that the limited review procedures established in Correction Law § 8 can lawfully be used to side-step and effectively eviscerate the robust protections set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 (e) (3), which directly apply to those seeking reinstatement under Civil Service Law § 71 … . Nevertheless, although both statutes have different purposes — Correction Law § 8 is designed to eliminate applicants “who exhibit psychological disorders that would indicate their unsuitability for the job” … , whereas Civil Service Law § 71 was enacted for the “protection of an employee separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease” … — both purposes can be achieved, and the statutes harmonized by permitting the use of Correction Law § 8 testing while preserving the review procedure set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 relative to employees falling within Civil Service Law § 71 … . Notably, despite the use of Correction Law § 8 testing, this matter remains distinctly a Civil Service Law § 71 reinstatement case.

… [P]etitioner is minimally entitled to receive the clandestine psychological report that formed the very basis for the disqualification for reinstatement, as well as all other rights attendant to a hearing held pursuant to article 3 of the State Administrative Procedure Act. … [T]o the extent that petitioner signed a waiver purporting to extinguish these rights, the waiver is a nullity inasmuch as respondent’s policy requiring all applicants to sign the consent and release form is an unpromulgated rule under the definition of “[r]ule” within State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (a) (i), and therefore is without effect … . Matter of Williams v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07280, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to the records of the psychological exam which found him unfit. The waiver of the right to review the documents, signed by petitioner at the outset, was based upon an unpromulgated rule and therefore was of no effect.

 

, , ,

HYDE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, LOST CONTROL AND CROSSED INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING COUNTY BUS; HYDE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the complaint against Bryant, the driver of the county bus involved in the accident, should have been dismissed. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, Hyde, lost control of the car and crossed into the path of the oncoming bus. Hyde was fatally injured and plaintiff had no memory of the accident:

Bryant stated in her affidavit and deposition testimony that a mixture of snow and ice was falling in the leadup to the accident and that, although the road was coated in snow, she was still able to see the center line and fog lines. Bryant added that she was travelling two to five miles below the speed limit and was comfortable driving the bus in the weather conditions. As for the accident itself, Bryant stated that Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane about 1½ car lengths in front of the bus and that she had a second to react before striking it, as well as that she had “nowhere to go” to evade Hyde’s vehicle and that she lightly applied her brakes in an effort to slow down without losing control of the bus. Plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, and nothing else in the record, including the police accident report, contradicted Bryant’s version of events. Bryant accordingly established that she reacted reasonably when Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane of traffic, and plaintiff’s speculation that Bryant might have been able to avoid the collision had she been driving even further below the speed limit or taken other evasive action despite having “at most, a few seconds to react,” did not raise a question of fact … . Northacker v County of Ulster, 2022 NY Slip Op 07285, Third dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The only evidence of the accident was that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger crossed into the path of the oncoming county bus and the bus driver had only a second to react. The county’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the bus driver should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING REQUIRED REMITTAL FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s failure to make findings of fact in the visitation proceedings required remittal:

Although the court recited that its determination was based upon the proof adduced at the fact-finding and Lincoln hearings, it did not make factual findings. Furthermore, the record is also not sufficiently developed in order for us to make an independent determination. In this regard, at the fact-finding hearing, the father withdrew his request for in-person visitation with the child and, on appeal, the father requests monthly telephone contact with the child. The mother testified that she opposed additional visitation than what was provided for in the 2013 order because the child showed signs of fear and apprehension, did not have a relationship with the father and was not engaged in writing letters to the father. The mother also testified that the child has a fear associated with prison and violence.

Other than the mother’s conclusory testimony, there was scant evidence, if any, demonstrating that the child having telephone contact with the father would be detrimental to the child’s welfare … . Moreover, even crediting the mother’s testimony about the child’s fear, it is unclear whether such fear relates to in-person visitation with the father at a prison or to telephone calls, as the father now requests. Because the record evidence is not sufficiently developed to determine whether the father should be awarded monthly telephone contact with the child, the matter must be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Anthony T. v Melissa U., 2022 NY Slip Op 07287, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In this “expansion of visitation” proceeding, the judge did not make findings of fact and the record was not sufficient for the appellate court to rule, the case was remitted to Family Court for a new hearing.

 

,

​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign and the extended 40-minute detention and the search of the vehicle were valid. The dissenters argued that rolling through the stop sign justified only a limited detention. The facts described by the majority are too detailed to fairly summarize. When the officers stopped the car, they were aware of defendant’s legal history and parole status. The defendant was outside the geographical limit of his parole conditions: The defendant’s parole officer was called to the scene and he conducted a search of the car pursuant to parole rules:

Defendant’s multiple and inconsistent explanations about his travels, which the police officers knew were false, coupled with his parole situation and his nervous demeanor throughout the encounter, combined to give the officers a founded suspicion of criminality … . As such, the police officers were authorized to extend the scope of the stop beyond its original justification by requesting consent to search defendant’s vehicle and, upon denial, detaining defendant to await a canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior … . * * *

Given that defendant was placed on lifetime parole in 1999 due to illegal narcotics activity, we conclude that Pirozzolo’s [the parole officer’s] decision to search the vehicle was reasonable and substantially related to the performance of his duties … .

From the dissent:

Defendant did give conflicting answers in response to [officer] Linehan’s inquiry, and County Court found that such answers, coupled with defendant’s nervous demeanor and parole status, gave Linehan founded suspicion that criminality was afoot. These answers and behavior by defendant, however, came after the initial justification for stopping and detaining defendant had already dissipated … . Indeed, between the time when Linehan effectuated the traffic stop and processed defendant’s license and registration, Linehan did not observe anything suspicious by defendant so as to give him founded suspicion that criminality was afoot in order to continue defendant’s detention … . People v Thomas, 2022 NY Slip Op 07263, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the majority concluded the traffic stop, the 40-minute detention, calling the defendant’s parole officer, and the search of the car by the parole officer, were valid. Two dissenters argued only the limited initial detention related to the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign was justified.

 

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