You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Sourour’s) motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the failure to do diagnostic testing decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome. During the trial Sourour sought to but was precluded from cross-examining plaintiff’s expert about whether other doctors who consulted on the case also departed from accepted practice by not performing the additional diagnostic testing. That was deemed reversible error:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . “In considering such a motion, [t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision” … . …

If, as Sourour proposes, a jury were to find that these doctors departed from accepted medical practice and that their departures were a substantial factor in depriving the decedent of a chance for an improved outcome, they could be found at fault together with Sourour … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of these doctors was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding testimony on this issue deprived Sourour of “substantial justice” … . Schuster v Sourour, 2022 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant doctor’s failure to do further diagnostic testing for cancer was deemed to have decreased the chance of a better outcome. Therefore the plaintiff’s verdict was supported by the evidence and properly survived a motion set aside as a matter of law. However, the judge erroneously precluded cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert about whether the other doctors who consulted on plaintiff’s treatment departed from accepted practice failing to order further diagnostic testing. If so, fault would have been shared pursuant to CPLR 1601.

 

, ,

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY SEARCHED THE INJURED DEFENDANT AND FOUND A CARTRIDGE; DEFENDANT WAS DRIFTING IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS; THE POLICE PROPERLY SEARCHED HIS POCKETS FOR IDENTIFICATION; SUPPRESSION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the search of plaintiff’s clothing by the police did not require suppression of the cartridge found in defendant’s pocket because the police were “acting in the public service function” in aiding the injured defendant:

… [T]he hearing court … denied suppression of a cartridge recovered from defendant’s pants pocket, correctly finding that “the police were acting in their public service function in rendering aid when searching the defendant’s clothing for identification.” When police arrived, defendant was lying on the ground and screaming that he had been shot. He appeared to have been shot in the leg, he was drifting in and out of consciousness, and he could not state his name. At that point, the officers were treating defendant as an injured victim rather than a suspect, and were not performing a law enforcement function … . Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe defendant needed immediate assistance and to search his pants for identification as they waited for him to be transported to the hospital …  In performing this public service function, it was reasonable for the police to ascertain the identity of the person they were aiding and to supply that information to medical personnel, and defendant did not appear capable of communicating his identity. People v Hatchett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-5-22

Practice Point: When the police aid an injured person and search the person’s pockets for identification, they are “acting in the public service function.” Suppression of any contraband found in the search will be denied.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH UNPRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the determination of the amount of restitution and remitted for a hearing. The error was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice. The court further noted that the recipient of the restitution was not put on the record:

… [T]he People failed to establish the victim’s actual out-of-pocket loss by a preponderance of the evidence. The restitution amount ordered by the court deviated from the loss claimed by the restaurant manager in his testimony, and the sole evidence supporting the actual amount of out-of-pocket loss calculated by the court was an undetailed, vague letter ostensibly from the restaurant franchisee’s insurer listing an amount of loss—the calculation and accuracy of which was, by their own representation at the hearing, unknown to the People … . People v Piasta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04243, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: Here the amount of restitution was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient of the restitution was not identified on the record. Although the errors were not preserved, they were considered in the interest of  justice. The matter was remitted for a hearing.

 

,

TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the evidence did not support the “drastic remedy” of terminating mother’s supervised visitation with the child:

Although Family Court found that both the mother and the father “testified credi[]bly that relations between the mother and child ha[d] deteriorated” — a determination that was borne out by the testimony — the “denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent is a drastic remedy” … and the record does not contain “substantial proof” that continued supervised visitation “would be harmful to the child” … . We are mindful of the father’s testimony that the child had returned home from a visit with bent glasses and marks on his leg. However, Family Court did not make any factual findings regarding these allegations, and the maternal grandfather — who drove the child home from that visit — denied ever observing the child’s glasses to be “messed up” or witnessing marks on the child’s legs. On this record, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the bent glasses and marks observed by the father were caused by the mother’s conduct. Moreover, while the mother herself acknowledged that there were issues in the relationship between her and the child, she indicated that this stemmed from the child’s difficult behavior and her concern about the child making racist comments in front of his three-year-old half-sibling. There was also testimony regarding the positive aspects of their relationship and the maternal grandfather, who did all the driving, corroborated that the child generally seemed content during visits. Notwithstanding the father’s testimony to the contrary, we conclude that the evidence presented was not sufficiently compelling and substantial to justify a wholesale suspension of the mother’s supervised visitation … . Matter of William V. v Christine W., 2022 NY Slip Op 04199, Third Dept 6-3022

Practice Point: The termination of supervised visitation is a “drastic remedy” which requires “substantial proof” continued visitation “would be harmful to the child.” The proof was lacking in this case.

 

, , ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; THEREFORE COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised several issues in the motion to vacate the conviction which were not addressed by the People’s response. Some of the issues were corroborated in an affidavit from defendant’s prior attorney. Therefore a hearing was necessary:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he is entitled to a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to fully cooperate under the terms of the 2016 cooperation agreement. A hearing is required on a CPL article 440 motion “if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief” … . In that regard, defendant averred that he consistently gave a truthful account of the burglary and had fully cooperated in the prosecution of [a codefendant] as required by the 2016 cooperation agreement, and his motion papers included a September 2016 supporting deposition from his sister and an affidavit from [his former attorney] to support those claims. Defendant also alleged specific deficiencies in counsel’s performance, namely, that counsel failed to investigate whether the Special Prosecutor’s withdrawal of the 2016 cooperation agreement was impermissibly “premised on bad faith, invidiousness, . . . dishonesty” or unconstitutional considerations and, moreover, failed to discuss the possibility of demanding a hearing on that issue with defendant … . People v Buckley, 2022 NY Slip Op 04197, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate the conviction raises substantive issues which are corroborated in some way (here with an affidavit by defendant’s prior attorney), and these substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the People’s responding papers, a hearing must be held.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

,

WHEN HER CHILDREN WERE ASLEEP, MOTHER WENT INTO THE BATHROOM, DRANK BRANDY, AND FELL ASLEEP; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A THREAT OF IMMINENT HARM TO THE CHILDREN OR THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFERED ANY EMOTIONAL HARM; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a dissent, determined the neglect finding against mother was not supported by evidence of a threat of imminent harm to the children. While the children were sleeping, mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep:

… [W]e find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s ill-advised conduct placed the children at risk of anything beyond, “at most, possible harm” … . To this point, respondent testified that her youngest children were in age-appropriate sleeping arrangements that presented no inherent danger resulting from respondent’s inebriated state … . Further, although there was a period when the children were no longer supervised by respondent when she was taken to the hospital, the testimony reveals that shelter staff were watching the children until petitioner’s supervisor arrived and took custody of them, and there is no indication that they were in any danger during this period of time … .

… [T]he record is devoid of any proof that the children were upset or suffered any emotional harm at any point during the incident … . Matter of Hakeem S. (Sarah U.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Children are not neglected unless there is a threat of imminent harm or actual harm. Here mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep while her children were asleep. The neglect finding was reversed.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUIRING A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING; THE APPELLATE COURT ORDERED A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING, INCLUDING A LINCOLN HEARING, AND ORDERED THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE THE PRESENT ATTORNEY HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father had demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to support a modification of the custody arrangement. The original custody order provided that the 50/50 custody sharing would change to mother’s having primary custody when the child started school. Father explained that mother’s primary custody was necessary because his work prevented him from taking the child to and from school. However, father had since changed jobs and moved to the school district where the child attended to school. The Third Department ordered a “best interests of the child” hearing, including a Lincoln hearing, and ordered the appointment of a different attorney for the child because the present attorney had expressed an opinion about the appropriate custody arrangement:

“A party seeking to modify a prior order of custody must show that there has been a change in circumstances since the prior order and, then, if such a change occurred, that the best interests of the child would be served by a modification of that order” … . According to the father’s petition, the sole reason for the parties’ initial agreement to decrease the father’s parenting time during the school year was because, at the time of the agreement, the father’s work schedule prevented him from transporting the child to and from school. According to the father’s hearing testimony, that circumstance had since changed. The father testified that, while the 50/50 custody arrangement was still in effect, he obtained a new job with a higher salary and more flexible hours, and bought a house in what was at that time the child’s school district, such that the school transportation issue had been alleviated. Matter of Thomas SS. v Alicia TT., 2022 NY Slip Op 04213, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case is an example of evidence which is deemed sufficient to support a modification of custody such that a “best interests of the child” hearing should be held. Here, as part of the “best interests” fact-finding, the Third Department ordered that a Lincoln hearing be held and that a different attorney for the child be appointed because the present attorney had expressed an opinion on custody.

 

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