You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANT TOOK A KEY, GOT IN A U-HAUL VAN, SAT FOR TWO MINUTES AND GOT OUT OF THE VAN; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ITS PROPERTY; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing larceny and possession of stolen property convictions, determined the evidence defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the U-Haul van of its property was insufficient. Defendant took a key to the van, sat in it for two minutes, and then got out of the van:

… [I]n order to sustain a conviction for grand larceny the People must establish that the defendant had the requisite larcenous intent, which means the “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person” (Penal Law § 155.05[1]).

“[T]he concepts of ‘deprive’ and ‘appropriate,’ which ‘are essential to a definition of larcenous intent,’ ‘connote a purpose . . . to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof'” … . For that reason, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny . . . is simply not satisfied by an intent temporarily to use property without the owner’s permission” … .

… [T]he evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the U-Haul van. …

… [A]jury could rationally infer that the defendant intended to use the van temporarily. To prove grand larceny, however, the People had to do more than prove that the defendant intended to use the van temporarily. They had to prove, in addition, that the defendant intended to “permanently deprive an owner of his or her property or to deprive the owner of it for so extended a period of time that a major portion of its economic value is lost” … . People v Golding, 2022 NY Slip Op 03741, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Grand Larceny includes the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here defendant took a key to a U-Haul van, got in the van, sat for two minutes, and got out of the van. There was, therefore, no proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of its property. Because grand larceny was not proven, possession of stolen property was not proven as well.

 

, , ,

THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES; THE CHARGES REQUIRED INTENTIONAL CONDUCT; THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY BUT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES; THE INCONSISTENCY RENDERED THE RULING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the hearing officer’s ruling terminating petitioner’s employment as a high school principal, determined the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner did not act intentionally was inconsistent with finding petitioner guilty of any of the charges. Petitioner allegedly gave unauthorized credits to students in an effort to increase graduation rates:

… [T]he hearing officer’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the petitioner acted intentionally is inconsistent with a finding that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges. Each of the 41 charges against the petitioner alleged that she knowingly and willfully approved the conferral of credits with full knowledge that such credit was unlawful, as part of an intentional scheme to accelerate credit acquisition in order to artificially inflate graduation rates. Because there was no allegation that the petitioner’s conduct was anything other than knowing and intentional, and because the hearing officer found that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner acted intentionally, the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner was guilty of all charges was arbitrary and capricious and without evidentiary support. At the hearing, the petitioner admitted to conduct that was, at most, negligent. There was no evidence to contradict the petitioner’s testimony that she did not act intentionally. Matter of Simpson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 03730, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The high school principal was charged with giving students unauthorized credits to increase graduation rates. All the charges alleged intentional conduct. The hearing officer (correctly) found the principal did not act intentionally, but sustained the charges and terminated her employment. The inconsistency rendered the hearing officer’s ruling in the arbitration arbitrary and capricious.

 

, ,

COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304, PARTICULARLY THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS, WAS NOT SHOWN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

… [A}lthough the plaintiff submitted a certified mail receipt, the receipt did not contain a postal stamp, indication that postage was paid, or an attendant signature, and the plaintiff did not submit any United States Postal Service tracking information … . The affidavit of Nancy Sczubleski, submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, also failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Sczubleski did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing … . Furthermore, while Sczubleski averred that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, the notices submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment indicate that they were not mailed by the plaintiff, but rather were mailed by an entity known as MGC Mortgage, Inc. (hereinafter MGC). Sczubleski, who stated in her affidavit that she was employed by Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., a sub-servicer of the loan, does not address this fact at all, let alone demonstrate that she was familiar with MGC’s mailing practices and procedures … . LNV Corp. v Allison, 2022 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Yet another example of the mortgagee’s failure to demonstrate the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mailed in its foreclosure motion papers.

 

,

THE LEVEL THREE STREET STOP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF A ROBBERY SUSPECT WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH; THAT THE DEFENDANT HID HIS FACE AND WALKED QUICKLY WHEN THE POLICE FOLLOWED HIM DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH THE REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a dissent, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime and the level-three stop of the defendant was not justified. The suppression motion was granted and the indictment dismissed. The street stop was based upon a vague description of a robbery suspect which did not match the defendant. The fact that the defendant acted “suspiciously” when the police followed him was not enough to validate the stop:

The officers did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a level three forcible stop and detention by ordering defendant to put his hands against a wall, grabbing his arms, and forcing him to the ground. Defendant matched the description only in that he was a black male. … That a defendant matches a vague, general description, such as the one the complainant gave of the perpetrator, is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, particularly where, as here, key parts of the description do not match … . …

Although defendant was walking at a fast pace and hiding his face from the officers, such equivocal behavior was just as susceptible to an innocent interpretation and may not increase the level of suspicion so as to justify a forcible stop … . Walking at a quick pace is not considered flight … . Defendant was under no obligation to walk more slowly or to show his face to the officers since he had a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry … . Defendant’s desire not to make eye contact with the officers was equally consistent with an innocent desire as a black male to avoid interactions with the police. People v Thorne, 2022 NY Slip Op 03696, First Dept 6-7-22

Practice Point: Here the police conducted a level-three street stop based upon a vague description of a robbery suspect which the defendant did not match. The stop was not justified by defendant’s hiding his face and walking quickly when the police followed him.

 

, ,

THE PROOF DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A FIREARM FOUND IN THE CEILING OF A HOUSE WHERE DEFENDANT WAS A GUEST WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AT THE TIME THE FIREARM WAS SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the proof defendant constructively possessed a firearm was legally insufficient. The firearm was in the drop ceiling of a living room in which defendant was present as a guest. DNA evidence may have demonstrated defendant possessed the firearm at a point in time, but did not demonstrate constructive possession at the time the firearm was seized:

A defendant’s mere presence in the house where the weapon is found is insufficient to establish constructive possession, and it is undisputed here that defendant had no connection to the apartment other than being there for a brief period of time for the purpose of gambling … . Further, the People failed to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over the [handgun] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … .

… [D]efendant’s contemporaneous text messages did not evince defendant’s consciousness of guilt and, in any event, “mere knowledge of the presence of the handgun would not establish constructive possession” … . Further, although evidence that defendant’s DNA profile matched that of the major contributor to DNA found on the handgun and that other individuals in the apartment were excluded as contributors thereto would support an inference that defendant physically possessed the gun at some point in time … , we conclude that it was not sufficient to support an inference that defendant had constructive possession of the weapon at the time that it was discovered … . People v King, 2022 NY Slip Op 03606, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Here DNA evidence suggested the defendant possessed the firearm at some point. But defendant’s presence as a guest  in the room where the firearm was found was not sufficient evidence of constructive possession of the firearm. Conviction reversed.

 

,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s plea and granting defendant’s suppression motion, determined the police did not have probable cause to seize defendant’s vehicle by blocking its exit with the police vehicle:

Police officer testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the time the officers stopped their vehicle in front of defendant’s vehicle, they had observed defendant’s presence in a vehicle at 1:00 p.m. in the parking lot of an apartment complex known for drug activity and where officers believed defendant did not reside, and they were aware that defendant had a history of drug-related convictions. Such evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . People v King, 2022 NY Slip Op 03595, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Blocking defendant’s vehicle with a police vehicle is a seizure which requires probable cause to believe defendant has committed or is committing a crime.

​

, ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO A BURGLARY EXCEPT A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT FOUND AT THE SCENE WHICH ONLY MATCHED 15 TO 22.5% OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANT’S INKED PRINT; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s burglary conviction, determined the evidence that a partial fingerprint from the burglary scene matched the defendant was too weak to support the conviction. The conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence:

On cross-examination, the fingerprint examiner agreed that her opinion is subjective, that two examiners may reach different opinions when examining the same set of prints, and that verification by a second examiner, particularly blind verification, significantly increases the accuracy of fingerprint analysis. She further testified that every individual fingerprint has approximately 80 to 120 classifiable characteristics, and that every characteristic between two prints must be identical for them to be considered a match. Here, because of the limited nature of the partial print, she was only able to match 18 characteristics, meaning that it matched 15% to 22.5% of the characteristics of defendant’s inked print. Further, there was no evidence presented at trial that a second examiner had made a positive verification that the partial print was made by defendant. No other evidence was introduced at trial linking defendant to the crime. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 03590, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Here a partial fingerprint matched only 15 to 22.5% of the characteristics of defendant’s inked print and the “match” was not verified by a second examiner conducting a blind verification. There was no other evidence linking defendant to the burglary. The conviction was deemed against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR BURGLARY OF THE ROBBERY-VICTIM’S HOME TO SHOW THE INTENT TO COMMIT ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE INTENT TO COMMIT ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY RENDERING EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARY TOO PREJUDICIAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s robbery and grand larceny convictions, determined Molineux evidence of a burglary of the robbery-victim’s home three days before the robbery should not have been admitted to show intent. The intent to rob was demonstrated by the victim’s testimony, rendering proof of the prior burglary more prejudicial than probative:

… [E]vidence that defendant may have been involved in an earlier burglary of the victim’s home was not necessary for the jury to infer that, three days later, defendant had the intent to rob the victim. Rather, defendant’s intent to forcibly steal property can be inferred from the victim’s testimony that defendant, while wielding a baseball bat, directed him to comply with the demands of an unidentified masked gunman to turn over money and property. Under those circumstances, any probative value of the evidence of the prior burglary “is outweighed by its potential for prejudice” … . For the same reason, defendant’s “intent to deprive another of property” … as required for a conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1], [5]), or intent “to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death” as required for a conviction of menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14 [1]) could likewise be easily inferred from the victim’s testimony describing defendant’s conduct during the alleged crimes. People v Dejesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 03584, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Evidence of defendant’s commission of an uncharged crime (Molineux evidence) to show defendant’s intent to commit the charged offenses will be deemed too prejudicial if the intent element of the charged offenses is demonstrated by the victim’s testimony.

 

, , , ,

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s treating physician (Hopson) in this personal injury case should have been allowed to testify as an expert, despite the failure to comply with full expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. The Third Department is the only department which requires such full expert disclosure by a treating physician and claimant’s attorney had not practiced in the Third Department:

There is no dispute that claimant failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) in identifying Hopson as a witness. Nevertheless, we disagree with the Court of Claims’ finding that claimant’s excuse was unreasonable. The situation here mirrors that in Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist. (151 AD3d 1254), where we accepted the explanation of the plaintiffs’ attorney that he was “unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record [was] otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful” … . The same holds true here, as claimant’s attorney revealed that she practices law in a different judicial department and candidly conceded that she was unaware of this Court’s interpretation that the statute requires expert disclosure for treating physicians. There is nothing in the record calling into question the veracity of counsel’s representations and no basis to conclude that the noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was willful. As such, the court erred in precluding Hopson’s testimony as an expert witness…. . Freeman v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03559, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Only the Third Department requires full expert-witness disclosure for a treating physician.

 

,

HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, affirming Harvey Weinstein’s criminal sexual act and rape convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined the expert testimony about rape trauma was admissible, the Molineux evidence was properly admitted on the issue of intent, and the Sandoval ruling was proper. The opinion is fact-specific and much too detailed to fully summarize here:

… [W]e find that the trial court properly permitted Dr. Ziv to testify. … [D]efendant has presented us with no authority suggesting that rape trauma syndrome has been discredited as a scientific phenomenon … . And because the syndrome is shrouded by certain rape “myths,” we can think of no more appropriate area where a jury requires the elucidation that can be facilitated by an expert witness. In other words, where there was a risk that the jury would be “puzzled” by some of the behaviors of the complainants during and after their sexual encounters with defendant, it was appropriate to admit “evidence of psychological syndromes” that would eliminate that confusion … . After all, defendant made clear that his defense would be based on those behaviors, which he would argue to the jury were inconsistent with how a victim of sexual assault would behave. * * *

From the People’s perspective, there was a significant risk that the jury would have concluded that defendant did not intend to compel the women to have sex with him. By introducing the Molineux evidence, the People were able to counter defendant’s narrative, by showing that the offenses against Haley and Mann were simply more elaborate manifestations of his practice of baiting women with opportunities for career advancement, and then taking advantage, all the while being completely uninterested in whether the women welcomed his advances, and being determined to go forward whether or not they did. Of course, the People could have attempted to prove defendant’s guilt merely by relying on the testimony of Haley, Mann and Sciorra, but that is an insufficient reason to preclude Molineux evidence … . * * *

The amount of Sandoval material is unquestionably large, and, at first blush, perhaps appears to be troublingly so. Nevertheless, in considering the propriety of whether to admit Sandoval material, and how much, the Court of Appeals has plainly stated that “the determination rests largely within the reviewable discretion of the trial court, to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it” (People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]). While we acknowledge the sheer size of the impeachment material that the court allowed, we have analyzed that decision within the larger context of all of the circumstances presented by this case, and have concluded that the court providently exercised its discretion…. . People v Weinstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 03576, First Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The First Department found that the expert testimony about rape trauma syndrome, the extensive Molineux evidence, and the extensive Sandoval evidence were properly admitted in the Harvey Weinstein trial.

 

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