You are here: / Evidence
,

THE METEOROLOGIST’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE AFFIANT; THE AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the parking-lot-owner’s (RGP’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted under the storm-in-progress rule. The meteorologist’s affidavit was not accompanied by the records the affidavit relied upon:

… RGP failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the storm in progress rule. In support of its motion, RGP relied upon an affidavit and report of a meteorologist who opined that a storm was in progress at the time the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice. However, copies of the records upon which the meteorologist relied in forming his opinion were not attached to the report, and thus, the report has no probative value … . Canciani v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01986, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: An affidavit submitted to prove the contents of records which are not attached has no probative value.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction and dismissing the count, and reversing the gang assault and assault first convictions, determined: (1) Brady material was withheld by redacting the name of a 911 caller who indicated defendant was not involved in the assault; (2) cross-examination of a police officer about a discrepancy between a complainant’s testimony and a statement attributed to the complainant in a police report should have been allowed; and (3) the judge should have inquired further after a juror indicated she “was not sure” about some of the convictions when the jury was polled:

While the contents of the 911 call may have provided some clues as to the identity of the caller, the defendant should not be forced to guess as to the identity of this caller. In addition, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the caller’s identity and contact information would have led to evidence that would have changed the result of the proceedings … . …

… [T]he court erred in precluding defense counsel from questioning the police witness about the contents of the report and the alleged prior inconsistent statement of complainant one …  . …

… [W]hen the jury was polled and asked if the verdict was theirs, juror number nine stated, “Um, I’m not sure, with some, but most of them, yes.” Although the Supreme Court thereafter inquired of juror number nine if the verdict announced to the court was her own, it did so by asking her “is that a yes or a no” in the presence of the remaining jurors, despite evidence before the court suggesting that juror number nine may have succumbed to pressure to vote with the majority even though she did not agree with the verdict as to certain counts. The court’s inquiry was therefore not sufficient … . People v Ramunni, 2022 NY Slip Op 02022, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here Brady material, the identity of a 911 caller, was withheld, cross-examination about inconsistent statements attributed to a complainant was not allowed, and a juror who, when polled, said she may not have agreed with verdict was not sufficiently questioned by the judge. One count of the indictment was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered on the gang assault and assault first counts.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating one conviction and reducing the sentence for another, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction over the unpreserved errors, determined defendant had been deprived of his right to confront a witness against him and the judge imposed a harsher sentence because defendant exercised his right to a trial:

… [T]he defendant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a DMV employee who was directly involved in sending out the suspension notices or who had personal familiarity with the mailing practices of the DMV’s central mail room or with the defendant’s driving record … . Thus, the testimony of the DMV employee was improperly admitted in order to establish an essential element of the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . …

… [P]rior to trial, the Supreme Court made its own plea offer to the defendant of an aggregate term of 1½ years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of 2 years of postrelease supervision in full satisfaction of the 16-count indictment … .The court … stated to the defendant: “You should understand the way I operate is as follows: Before trial with me you get mercy; after trial you get justice” … . The defendant declined the plea offer and proceeded to trial, after which he was acquitted of the top counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court then sentenced the defendant on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree to a term of 5 years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years. People v Ellerbee, 2022 NY Slip Op 02016, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here the DMV employee who had personal knowledge of the mailing of the license suspension notice to defendant and the defendant’s driving record apparently was not called as a witness. Therefore defendant was deprived of his right to confront the witness about an essential element of the offense. In addition, the judge imposed a much harsher sentence than that offered as part of a plea bargain. The judge thereby penalized the defendant because he chose to go the trial. Both of these errors were not preserved for appeal but were considered in the interest of justice.

 

,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP BASED ON THE LICENSE PLATES NOT MATCHING THE VEHICLE, DEFENDANT PRESENTED HIS TEMPORARY REGISTRATION AND EXPLAINED THE PLATES HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM A DIFFERENT VEHICLE; AT THAT POINT THE AUTHORIZATION TO DETAIN DEFENDANT CEASED; THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant possession of a controlled substance conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police, after making a valid traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle, did not have the authority to detain him after he presented his temporary registration and explained that the license plates had been transferred from another vehicle:

… [T]he justification for the officer’s initial detention ceased once defendant showed the officer the temporary registration that had been issued for the vehicle and explained that the license plates on the vehicle had recently been transferred from another vehicle … .. We further conclude that the record does not support the court’s determination that the circumstances following the initial stop provided the officer with probable cause to believe that defendant was violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 507 (2) … . Indeed, the record does not support the court’s finding that, when defendant produced a learner’s permit upon being asked to produce his driver’s license, the officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle due to the lack of a valid driver’s license. Thus, inasmuch as “the initial justification for seizing and detaining defendant . . . was exhausted” at the time of defendant’s removal from the vehicle, the evidence seized during the ensuing search of defendant’s person, as well as the statements that he made to the police thereafter, should have been suppressed … .People v Betsey-Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 01924, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Here the police stopped defendant because the license plates did not match the color and make of defendant’s vehicle in the DMV database. Once the the defendant showed the officer his temporary registration and explained the license plates had been transferred from a different vehicle, the justification for the detention of the defendant ceased. Any statements made and evidence seized after that point should have been suppressed.

 

,

THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE DRUGS WERE FOUND; DEFENDANT’S MERE PRESENCE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DRUGS DID NOT PROVE HIS POSSESSION OF THE DRUGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a controlled substance conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs was not demonstrated. There was no proof defendant exercised dominion and control over the area in which the drugs were found, as opposed to merely being present in the vicinity of the drugs:

Where there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance, the People are required to establish that the defendant “exercised ‘dominion or control’ over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized” … . The People may establish constructive possession by circumstantial evidence … , but a defendant’s mere presence in the area in which contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession … . People v Mighty, 2022 NY Slip Op 01923, Fourth Dept 3-18-18

Practice Point: If a defendant does not physically possess the drugs, to prove constructive possession, the People must demonstrate the defendant exercised dominion and control over the area where the drugs were found, perhaps by proving defendant resided there, for example.

 

,

THE NEGLECT FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s neglect finding, determined the finding was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence:

“[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence … , first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” … .. In considering whether the requisite minimum degree of care was provided, “[c]ourts must evaluate parental behavior objectively: would a reasonable and prudent parent have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . Here, the evidence at the fact-finding hearing establishes that the mother acknowledged her mental health issues and had been compliant with treatment following her discovery that she was pregnant … ; and that she was engaged in a supportive housing program that would allow her to care for the child, thereby limiting any extended need for foster care … . Matter of Isabella S. (Nicole S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 01897, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Although the specific allegations of neglect are not described in this decision, the criteria for a neglect finding are clearly explained.

 

,

THE POLICE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MAN IN A MOTEL ROOM (DEFENDANT) WAS A SUSPECT IN A SHOOTING; AN INFORMANT HAD TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN IN THE ROOM WAS FROM ROCHESTER, HIS NICKNAME WAS “JAY” AND HE “HAD A WARRANT;” WHEN THE MAN LEFT THE ROOM, THE POLICE STOPPED HIS TAXI; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the defective’s order to stop the taxi in which defendant was a passenger. An informant told the police a man in a motel room was from Rochester, his nickname was “Jay,” and he “had a warrant.” The detective believed the man in the motel room was a suspect in a shooting which occurred a month before. Surveillance was set up and the detective was told a man had left the room and gotten into a taxi. The defective, who did not see the man leave the room, ordered the stop of the taxi: It turned out that defendant was not the shooting suspect. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance:

At the suppression hearing, a police detective testified that he directed the stop of the taxi based on a belief that defendant was in fact a different man whom authorities had identified as a suspect in a shooting that had occurred over a month earlier. …

The detective conceded that he had never seen a still photo of the suspect, that the video of the shooting that he did view lacked detail, and that he was unaware of whether the suspect’s actual height, weight, skin tone, or other specific discernable characteristic were on the arrest warrant for the shooting suspect. Further, the informant never identified the man in the motel room as the shooter, and the vague description given, i.e., that the man was from Rochester, that his nickname was the ubiquitous “Jay,” and that he “had a warrant”, is too generalized to support the reasonable suspicion required for the officers’ stop of the taxi … . … This is also not a case in which the “proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime[ and] the brief period of time between the crime and the discovery of the defendant near the location of the crime” added to the totality of circumstances supporting the detective’s reasonable suspicion … . People v Singleton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01893, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: The police mistakenly thought the man in a motel room (defendant) was a shooting suspect based upon vague and general allegations made by an informant. When he left the motel room, the defendant’s taxi was stopped and he was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance. The People did not demonstrate the legality of the stop.

 

,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this ice slip and fall case did not eliminate questions of fact about whether they had constructive notice of the icy condition:

Supreme Court found that plaintiffs’ testimony, submitted by defendants, showed that the allegedly dangerous condition “was neither visible nor had it existed for a significant period of time,” and “plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to prove . . . constructive notice.” Although [plaintiff] testified that the parking lot appeared wet, not icy, when viewed from her husband’s truck, she also stated that she saw the ice once she had fallen; further, the affidavit of a witness states that “[t]he ice in the parking lot that morning was clearly visible.” Thus, the record contains conflicting accounts as to the visibility of the ice. “When considering a summary judgment motion, courts must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accord that party the benefit of every reasonable inference from the record proof, without making any credibility determinations” … . Applying this standard, we find a triable issue of fact as to constructive notice. Carpenter v Nigro Cos., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01857, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, here whether the ice which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was visible, summary judgment is not appropriate.

 

,

A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR VENUE PURPOSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s submission of a computer printout from the NYS Department of State website was insufficient to prove defendant’s principal place of business was in Kings County. Defendant had submitted its certificate of incorporation designating Richmond County as its principal place of business. Therefore plaintiff did not demonstrate the proper venue for this traffic accident case was Kings County. Plaintiff lived in New Jersey and the accident occurred in Ulster County:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s certificate of incorporation had been amended to designate a principal office located in Kings County … or that the venue selected was otherwise proper. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, a computer printout from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations, submitted by the plaintiff, did not conclusively establish that Kings County is a proper venue for this action. The printout was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record … . Faulkner v Best Trails & Travel Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01770, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here a printout from the NYS Department of State purporting to show the location of defendant’s principal place of business was not admissible in this dispute over proper venue. The printout was not certified or authenticated and was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient for admissibility as a business record.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INFANT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL; MOTHER, FATHER AND THE DEFENDANTS PROVIDED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FALL WAS CAUSED BY AN IDENTIFIED DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that fact that the infant plaintiff, who was four at the time of her slip and fall, could not identify the cause of her fall did not require summary judgment in defendant’s favor. The cause of the fall may be established  by circumstantial evidence:

“In a trip-and-fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall” … . However, “‘[t]hat does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall'” … . A determination “that a defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of an accident can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury” … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, among other things, the affidavit of the mother of the infant plaintiff who averred that she observed the infant plaintiff fall and that the fall was caused by a defective condition of a sidewalk in the park … . The mother also identified the location of the alleged defective sidewalk in a photograph that was included in the submission of both the plaintiffs and the … defendants … . In support of their respective motions, the … defendants had also submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff, who testified, among other things, that her mother had seen her fall, and of her father, who averred that, at the time of the incident, he ran over to his daughter immediately after her fall and that, at that time, her body was partly on the sidewalk at issue. E. F. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01769, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Although the infant plaintiff could not identify the cause of her slip and fall, which is usually a fatal evidentiary problem, mother, father and defendants provided circumstantial evidence which raised a question of fact about an identified sidewalk defect as the cause of the fall.

 

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