You are here: / Evidence
,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS DIRECT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT OWNED THE CAMERA WHICH WAS SET UP TO VIEW THE VICTIM’S BEDROOM, THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO ACTUALLY PLACED THE CAMERA ON THE NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY; THERFORE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s request for the circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant was charged with setting up a camera on a neighbor’s property to view the victim’s bedroom. There was some direct evidence that the camera belonged to defendant. But the jury would have to rely on circumstantial evidence to find that the defendant had positioned the camera to view the victim:

… [P]roof by direct evidence as to one element of a crime … does not mean that a circumstantial evidence charge should be not given … . …

… [T]he record fails to disclose any eyewitness testimony — or any other proof — identifying defendant as the perpetrator who placed the camera on the neighbor’s lawn … . To conclude that defendant was the perpetrator, the jury had to make an inference based upon defendant’s ownership of the camera and the pictures of him found therein. Because “the People’s proof relative to the identity of the perpetrator . . . was entirely circumstantial” … County Court should have granted defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . People v Lamb, 2022 NY Slip Op 07267, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Even though there was direct evidence of an element of an offense, the circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been in this case. Defendant was charged with setting up a camera to view the victim in the victim’s bedroom. There was direct evidence defendant owned the camera but no direct evidence it was defendant who placed the camera on the neighbor’s property.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH TWO CHILDREN HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S CARE AFTER NEGLECT FINDINGS AND MOTHER ALLEGEDLY CONCEALED HER PREGNANCY AND FAILED TO SEEK APPROPRIATE PRENATAL CARE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING MOTHER HAD NEGLECTED HER NEWBORN WAS NOT APPROPRIATE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined summary judgment finding respondent mother had neglected and derivatively neglected her newborn baby was not appropriate. Two children had been removed from mother’s care based on neglect findings,. Mother allegedly had concealed her pregnancy and allegedly had not sought appropriate prenatal case. But triable issues of fact remained. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

Upon review of the record and considering the nature of the prior neglect findings, the passage of time, and the questions concerning the degree of progress made by respondent over that time, we find that there are triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b] …). Petitioner’s motion was centered upon the two prior findings of neglect and respondent’s failure to abide by the corresponding orders of disposition … . However, the petition itself acknowledged that respondent had recently become more compliant with petitioner, resulting in expanded visitation with her children, and had been making improvements in her engagement with services and communication skills. According to the petition, respondent had put together a safety plan for the subject child to live with her, and petitioner saw this as “a strength” and was “hopeful in working with” respondent on this plan. Further, petitioner pointed out in opposition to the motion that she had improved her housing and employment situation and ended a relationship with an abusive partner…. .

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a fact-finding hearing concerning the allegations in the petition … . Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit to a different judge for the purpose of conducting the hearing. Matter of Ja’layna FF. (Jalyssa GG.), 2022 NY Slip Op 07271, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Summary judgment is almost never appropriate in a child-neglect matter. Here summary judgment finding mother had neglected her newborn based on neglect findings re: two other children and allegations mother had concealed her pregnancy and failed to seek appropriate prenatal care was reversed. There existed several triable issue of fact, including recent cooperation by mother. The matter was remitted for a hearing in front of a different judge.

 

, , ,

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees associated with his ultimately successful FOIL request for the video of the incident which was the basis for the prison disciplinary proceedings. Attorney’s fees were denied on the ground that the respondent had a reasonable basis for denying the request for the video. However the respondent’s reasons for the denial merely parroted the relevant statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions, which was deemed insufficient:

In denying petitioner’s initial FOIL request and the subsequent administrative appeal, respondent merely quoted the language from the Public Officers Law. It gave no factual explanation or justification for its blanket denial to release the video footage. Although respondent provided an affirmation by its general counsel in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the affirmation once again merely quoted the statutory language and failed to explain or demonstrate how the footage was compiled for any law enforcement purposes. In a conclusory and speculative fashion, the affirmation referenced some investigations and adjudications, but failed to provide any factual details or explanation of same. Moreover, the affirmation failed to detail how the release of the video footage would affect or interfere with said investigations and adjudications. “[R]espondent[], by merely parroting the statutory language and otherwise failing to provide any adequate sort of harm risked by disclosure, ha[s] failed to meet [its] burden of proving that disclosure of the records would interfere with a pending law enforcement investigation” … .

The affirmation was equally deficient with regard to the safety exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), in that it was neither particularized nor specific and failed to articulate an explanation as to how the release of the video footage could potentially endanger or impair the lives of correction officers or their families. Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07277, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In order to deny attorney’s fees after a successful FOIL request, the respondent must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the initial denial of the request. Merely parroting the statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions is not sufficient. The reasons must be fact-based.

 

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE FACT THAT IT WAS SNOWING AND THERE WERE ICY ROAD CONDITIONS DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICABILIITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this chain-reaction traffic accident case, determined there were questions of fact about the weather (snow and ice) and traffic conditions at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in the middle car: Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint pursuant to the emergency doctrine:

Striking a vehicle in the rear is negligence as a matter of law absent a sufficient excuse” … . The excuse proffered by defendants here, and accepted by Supreme Court, was that they were confronted with an emergency in the form of sudden snowfall and icy road conditions such that they could not avoid the respective collisions. “[I]n order for a driver to be entitled to summary judgment based upon the emergency doctrine, he or she must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the emergency situation with which he or she was confronted was not of his or her own making and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” … . “Whether [a] defendant was presented with an emergency is generally a question of fact” … . In addition, “the emergency doctrine is inapplicable [where a] defendant driver was aware of . . . icy road conditions and should have accounted for them properly” … . “[A] driver is expected to maintain enough distance between himself [or herself] and cars ahead of him [or her] so as to avoid collisions with [slowing or] stopped vehicles, taking into account weather and road conditions” … . Williams v Ithaca Dispatch, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07278, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Although it was snowing and there were icy road-conditions at the time of this chain-reaction traffic accident, the emergency doctrine should not have been applied to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

 

,

THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the calculations in the referee’s report were not supported by the relevant business records and the report, therefore, should not have been confirmed:

… [T]he affidavit of Tiffany Bluford, an employee of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [she] purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations” … . Moreover, the affidavit of Andrea Kruse, another employee of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, did not contain any averment as to the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan. Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Delgado, 2022 NY Slip Op 07223, Second Dept 12-21-22

Similar issue and result in Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Helal, 2022 NY Slip Op 07259, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the calculations in the referee’s report are not supported by the submission of the relevant business records, the report is based on hearsay and should not be confirmed.

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Summer Young, a vice president of the plaintiff’s purported loan servicer. The affidavit was based upon Young’s review of her employer’s records, which were attached thereto. Young did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, and her affidavit did not contain proof of the standard office mailing procedure at the time the RPAPL 1304 notice allegedly was sent … . Nor did the annexed records demonstrate, prima facie, that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed … . Because the plaintiff “failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304,” and therefore failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law …  The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Michalczyk, 2022 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: the bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient evidence of compliance with the notice and mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice case. determined the motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should not have been granted. but the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted, explaining the difference:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) 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 considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . …

… “[A] motion to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should be granted ‘[o]nly where the evidence so preponderates in favor of the unsuccessful litigant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . … “‘Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a factual question. In reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division has the power to determine whether a particular factual question was correctly resolved by the trier of facts. If the original fact determination was made by a jury, as in this case, and the Appellate Division concludes that the jury has made erroneous factual findings, the court is required to order a new trial, since it does not have the power to make new findings of fact in a jury case'” … . * * *

As to the weight of the evidence, based on the record, we find that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and must be set aside (see CPLR 4404[a] …). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the complaint, grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial…. . Osorio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07072, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: When an appellate court determines the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence in a jury trial it must order a new trial because an appellate court does not have the authority to make new findings of fact in a jury trial.

 

,

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction stemming from a transparent plastic bag of pills seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop. determined the seizure of the pills was not justified by the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The court noted that the Penal Law statute prohibiting a probable-cause finding based solely on the odor of marijuana is not applied retroactively and therefore the marijuana odor and the observation of the marijuana provided probable cause for a search pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement here:

The plain view doctrine is not applicable where the object must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined … . The movement or manipulation of an object from its original state in a manner that goes beyond the objectives of the original search constitutes an independent search or seizure … . Such a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated … .

Here, Cruz [the officer] testified that he did not know what the pills in the ziploc bag were when he seized them. * * *

Since it was obvious that the transparent ziploc bag seized by Cruz did not contain marihuana, and since it was not immediately apparent that the ziploc bag contained any other type of contraband, there was no justification for seizing the bag … . People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07080, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The Penal Law statute prohibiting a probable-cause finding based solely on the odor of marijuana is not applied retroactively.

Practice Point: If an object, i.e., a transparent plastic bag of pills, must be manipulated before it can be determined to be contraband, seizure under the plain view exception is not justified. Here the odor and observation of marijuana provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle, and containers within the vehicle, for marijuana. Because the transparent bag of pills did not contain marijuana, the plain view exception did not apply.

 

,

THE USE OF PEPPER SPRAY BY JAIL PERSONNEL (AFTER A WARNING) WHEN DEFENDANT REFUSED TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES WAS NOT “EXCESSIVE FORCE;” THEREFORE DEFENDANT, WHO ASSAULTED THE OFFICER FIVE SECONDS AFTER HE WAS SPRAYED, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN HIS ASSAULT TRIAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a jury instruction on the justification defense. At the jail, the defendant was ordered to take off his shoes. When he refused, after being warned, he was sprayed in the face with pepper spray. Five seconds after he was sprayed, defendant charged the officer and punched him in the head:

The Appellate Division concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, there was a “reasonable view of the evidence that the use of the pepper spray constituted excessive force in this scenario” … . …

… [T]here is no reasonable view of the evidence that the sergeant’s use of pepper spray was excessive or otherwise unlawful. The trial evidence was that defendant was given a lawful command to remove his footwear, that he was given that verbal command several times yet persisted in his refusal, and that he was specifically warned that he would be pepper sprayed if he did not comply. The officers further testified that the use of pepper spray was considered a “minimal” use of force compared to using “hands on” force to remove the footwear. People v Heiserman, 2022 NY Slip Op 07024, CtApp 12-12-22

Practice Point: Jail personnel ordered defendant to take off his shoes. He refused and continued to refuse after he was warned he would be pepper-sprayed. Hw assaulted the officer five seconds after being sprayed. The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the use of pepper spray was not excessive force and the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense.

 

,

THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT” IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the People did not prove the scar on the victim’s cheek met the definition of “serious and protracted disfigurement.” The People introduced two photos of the scar and the doctor who treated the injury testified. The victim did not testify:

Defendant’s convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that the victim suffered serious and permanent disfigurement, which was the basis of both counts (see Penal Law §§ 120.10[1], [2]). The People relied solely on two photos of the victim depicting a scar on his cheek, and the scar was briefly described by the doctor who treated the victim on the day of the slashing. Despite the scar’s prominent location, neither the photos nor the doctor’s testimony warrant an inference that the scar rendered the victim’s appearance “distressing or objectionable” to a reasonable observer … . The victim did not testify, so the jury had no opportunity to observe the actual scar and evaluate whether it was seriously disfiguring, nor was any other evidence adduced regarding the scar’s effects on the victim’s appearance, health, and life … . People v McBride, 2022 NY Slip Op 07034, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was charged with assault first for causing “serious and protracted disfigurement” to the victim. Although two photos of the scar were introduced in evidence and the treating doctor testified, the victim did not testify. It appears that the jury’s inability to see the victim at the time of trial rendered the proof legally insufficient.

 

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