You are here: / Evidence
,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological data presented to show there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall was not authenticated, related to a different county, and conflicted with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing:

… [T]he defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three pages of climatological data that it submitted in support of its motion should have been authenticated because these pages themselves did not indicate that the data contained therein was “taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau” (CPLR 4528). In any event, the climatological data was gathered from a neighboring county, and it was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that light snow fell about [*2]six hours prior to the accident. Under the circumstances, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the alleged slippery condition … . Beaton v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04477, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, over two concurrences and a two-justice dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of the vehicle in which cocaine was found was not demonstrated to be valid under the fellow officer rule, was not demonstrated to be valid pursuant to the automobile exception, and was not demonstrated to be based on a valid inventory search. In a nutshell, the claimed exceptions to the warrant requirement were rejected because they were not supported by the evidence at the suppression hearing. The detailed factual and legal analyses cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinion should be consulted on the issues addressed, including the propriety of the stop of the vehicle, because of the extraordinary depth of the discussions. County Court’s denial of suppression was based on the following findings. All except the reason for the stop (an observed traffic violation) were rejected on appeal:

The [county] court first concluded that the State Troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle by virtue of “the fellow-officer rule.” … [T]he court cited to testimony that law enforcement officials had intercepted approximately 89,000 communications, and that some of these communications indicated that there would be a quantity of narcotics in the vehicle on the night in question.

… [T]he [county] court credited the testimony of one of the State Troopers who testified that he observed the subject vehicle exceed the maximum speed limit and fail to maintain its lane.

…[T]he [county] court concluded that the intercepted communications and the application of the fellow officer rule provided a lawful basis for the search of the vehicle at the outset of the traffic stop.

The [county court] concluded that the State Troopers were authorized to search the subject vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the court noted that one of the State Troopers had reportedly detected the odor of marihuana when he initially approached the vehicle after it was pulled over.

Finally, the County Court determined, as a third alternative ground, that the cocaine was properly recovered pursuant to a valid inventory search.  People v Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT AN INAUDIBLE RECORDING AND TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A PURPORTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined it was reversible error to admit in evidence an inaudible tape recording and to provide the jury with a purported transcript of the recording:

Whether a tape recording should be admitted into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court after weighing the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice” … . “An audiotape recording should be excluded from evidence if it is so inaudible and indistinct that a jury must speculate as to its contents” … . “Even where tape recordings are inaudible in part, so long as the conversations can be generally understood by the jury, such infirmities go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility” … . “[I]n order to constitute competent proof, a tape should be at least sufficiently audible so that independent third parties can listen to it and produce a reasonable transcript” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting the subject recording into evidence … . The first approximately 25 minutes of the conversation between the defendant and the complainant on the subject recording is almost completely inaudible, as all that can be heard are the background noises of a restaurant … . Further, some of the remaining portions of the subject recording were “so inaudible and indistinct” … that the jury would have had to speculate as to their contents … . The error was compounded when the jury was given what purported to be a transcript of portions of the largely inaudible recording … . People v Melendez, 2021 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S PARALYSIS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff’s expert failed to raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case:

… [P]laintiff alleged that if [defendants] Lougee and King had made an appropriate referral to an orthopedic specialist and monitored her condition after the referral was made, plaintiff would have received necessary surgery before she became paralyzed. … [Defendants] appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. * * *

The affidavit of plaintiff’s medical expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition inasmuch as the conclusory opinion of plaintiff’s expert that defendants’ “multiple deviations from the standard of care were a substantial contributing factor in causing [plaintiff’s injuries]” is insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning proximate cause … . It is undisputed that treatment of a condition arising out of an issue with plaintiff’s spinal hardware is outside the scope of defendants’ practice and that referral to an orthopedic specialist … was appropriate, and plaintiff’s expert failed to identify what treatments or interventions were necessary, how defendants’ monitoring of [the orthopedic specialist] would have necessarily resulted in those treatments or interventions being performed by the specialist, and whether the timing of any such interventions would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries. Humbolt v Parmeter, 2021 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE CASEWORKER, UNDER THE FACTS, ACTED AS AN AGENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statements made by defendant to a Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworker should have been suppressed because, under the facts, she was acting as an agent of law enforcement at the time of the interview:

… [T]he CPS caseworker testified at the Huntley hearing that, at the time she interviewed defendant, she was aware that defendant was being held on criminal charges and that he was represented by counsel. She further testified that she worked on a multidisciplinary task force composed of social services and law enforcement agencies, through which she received training on interviewing individuals accused of committing sexual offenses. Additionally, in keeping with task force protocol directing her to report to law enforcement any inculpatory statements made during CPS interviews, the CPS caseworker called the investigating officer immediately following the interview with defendant and promptly went to his office to report defendant’s statements. Under the circumstances of this case as reflected at the hearing, although the police did not specifically direct the CPS caseworker to conduct the interview on a specific date or time or accompany her to the interview … , we conclude that the CPS caseworker here had a “cooperative working arrangement” with police such that she was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed defendant and relayed his incriminatory statements … . The statements were thus obtained in violation of defendant’s right to counsel, and the court erred in refusing to suppress them … . Further, because defendant’s statements to the CPS caseworker were the only statements in which he admitted to having sexual contact with the victim, we cannot say that there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” … . People v Desjardins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04465, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT WEIGH THE CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER PETITIONER SEX-OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY REQUIRING CONFINEMENT PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; MATTER SENT BACK FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sex-offender Mental-Hygiene-Law proceeding, determined the court did not base its decision to discharge and release the petitioner on the expert evidence presented at the hearing. The matter was sent back for a new hearing before a different judge:

The State’s expert here diagnosed petitioner with ASPD [antisocial personality disorder] with narcissistic features and the condition of psychopathy, and the expert testified that those diagnoses, together with petitioner’s enduring hostility towards women, collectively constitute a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i). She acknowledged that the scientific community has been debating for decades whether psychopathy is a distinct condition from ASPD, but she opined that they were indeed separate conditions. Petitioner’s expert, on the other hand, diagnosed petitioner with ASPD but testified that petitioner had no other conditions in addition to that diagnosis that would render him a sex offender within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 10. He further testified that psychopathy was simply an extreme variant of ASPD and should not be considered a condition separate from ASPD.

The court determined that a diagnosis of psychopathy or psychopathic features is still only a diagnosis of ASPD alone and thus, under Donald DD. (24 NY3d at 190), could not constitute an “other condition” to provide a basis for a finding of a mental abnormality. … [I] so holding, the court did not resolve the conflict between the experts regarding ASPD and psychopathy by weighing their testimony but rather made a determination that, generally speaking and without regard to petitioner’s specific case, a finding of ASPD and psychopathy can never provide a basis for a finding of mental abnormality. Contrary to the court’s apparent conclusion, “the Court of Appeals in Donald DD. did not state that diagnosis of ASPD with psychopathy is insufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality” … . When supported by expert testimony, a diagnosis of ASPD and psychopathy is legally sufficient to provide a basis for a finding of mental abnormality Inasmuch as there was conflicting expert opinion on the matter, the court should have weighed the testimony of the experts in rendering its determination whether petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality … . Matter of Application for Discharge of Doy S. v State of New York. 2021 NY Slip Op 04456, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS OF THE PARENTS BEFORE AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER REQUIRED REMITTAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the psychological evaluations should have been made before awarding sole custody of the child to father:

The mother’s mental and emotional health was the central issue contested in this proceeding, and we conclude that the court abused its discretion in making its determination and awarding the father sole custody of the child without first considering the results of the psychological evaluations that it ordered … . Although a psychological expert testified at the fact-finding hearing on behalf of the father, that expert interviewed the parties and the subject child to assess whether the child had been sexually abused, and therefore he did not provide much information on the mother’s emotional functioning, the impact her mental health issues had on [*2]her ability to parent the child, or the fitness of either parent. Thus, on this record, we cannot say that there was sufficient evidence for the court to resolve the custody dispute without considering the court-ordered psychological examinations of the parents … . Matter of Pontillo v Johnson-Kosiorek, 2021 NY Slip Op 04455, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT DEMONSTRATED A STUDENT’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLANTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant school district demonstrated a student’s sexual assault of plaintiff was not foreseeable:

… [D]efendant met its … burden on the motion by establishing that the “sexual assault against [plaintiff by the student] was an unforeseeable act that, without sufficiently specific knowledge or notice, could not have been reasonably anticipated” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Defendant’s submissions, including plaintiff’s testimony, established the undisputed fact that plaintiff and the student did not know each other and did not have any prior interactions before the sexual assault … . Although the student had an extensive and troubling disciplinary history that resulted in several detentions and suspensions, such history did not contain any infractions for physically aggressive conduct directed at other people, sexually inappropriate behavior, or threats of physical or sexual violence … .

… [W]hile the student’s history involved attendance issues, insubordination toward school staff, inappropriate verbal outbursts, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, possession and sale of drugs, and academic problems, that history did not raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the injury-causing conduct inasmuch as it was not similar to the student’s physically and sexually aggressive behavior that injured plaintiff … . “More significantly, [the student’s] prior history did not include any sexually aggressive behavior” … . We also agree with defendant that the court impermissibly drew an unsubstantiated and speculative inference that the student’s disclosure to a school social worker about being a victim of sexual abuse during his childhood, coupled with his substance abuse, should have provided defendant with notice of the student’s propensity to commit sexual assault … . Knaszak v Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04441, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED COUNTY COURT DID NOT CORRECTLY APPLY THE DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-SURVIVOR’S-ACT CRITERIA IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT FOR THE MURDER OF HER ABUSIVE HUSBAND; SENTENCES SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, reversed County Court’s application of the Domestic Violence Survivor’s Act (social Services Law 459-a) and significantly reduced the sentences for murder and possession of a weapon. Defendant shot and killed her husband. The jury rejected defendant’s “battered women’s syndrome” defense. But the Second Department found that the criteria for sentence reduction under the DV Survivor’s Act had been met by the evidence:

… [W]e hold that the County Court did not properly apply the DV Survivor’s Act when sentencing the defendant. Upon considering the plain language of the DV Survivor’s Act, the legislative history of the statute, and the particular circumstances of this case, we modify the judgment, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing (1) the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of murder in the second degree from an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 19 years to life to a determinate term of imprisonment of 7½ years to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, and (2) the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree from a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3½ years to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, which terms shall run concurrently with each other. * * *

Upon consideration of the nature and circumstances of the crime, as well as the history, character, and condition of the defendant, we conclude that a sentence in accordance with the DV Survivor’s Act is warranted. The defendant is a 32-year-old mother of two young children, and has no known prior arrests or convictions. The defendant testified that she was repeatedly physically and sexually abused by Grover, as well as by other men in her past, and reportedly was sexually assaulted at the age of five. However, our examination under this factor does not end there. We also consider, among other things, the details of the crimes, including that the defendant shot Grover in the head as he was lying on the couch. Grover’s fatal injury was described as a hard contact wound in which the gun fired by the defendant was pressed against Grover’s skin, leaving a muzzle imprint. People v Addimando, 2021 NY Slip Op 04364, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

,

DEFEFNDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the statements defendant made while handcuffed were admissible because the statements were made in response to questions posed for safety reasons and not to elicit an incriminating response:

County Court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement that he made to law enforcement while being patted down. Although defendant was handcuffed, in custody and had not been advised of his Miranda rights when he was asked by Haven whether the handgun that was retrieved from his back pocket was loaded, said inquiry was not made to elicit an incriminating response, but was made for the purpose of alleviating the inherent risk of securing a potentially loaded weapon and protecting the safety of defendant, responding officers and those other individuals present during the execution of the warrant … . Accordingly, [the] question fell squarely within the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement and, therefore, suppression of defendant’s statement was appropriately denied … . People v Rashid, 2021 NY Slip Op 04390, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

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