You are here: / Evidence
,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined it was error to allow a police officer to identify the defendant in a surveillance video, and it was error to allow police officers to testify about what they learned from others (hearsay) about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. Although the errors were deemed harmless because of the overwhelming evidence, these two rulings are significant. The court noted there is no Molineux exception for hearsay for so-called background information:

​“A lay witness may give an opinion concerning the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the

than is the jury” … . Here, “there was no basis for concluding that the [officer] was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether . . . defendant was depicted in the video” … .  The officer was not familiar with defendant, and there was no evidence showing that defendant had changed his appearance before trial … .

… [T]he court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from police officers regarding what they learned from others about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. The challenged testimony was hearsay that was not admissible under any cognizable exception to the hearsay rule. The People essentially argue that this testimony was admissible under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) to complete the narrative with background information. We reject that argument and reiterate that “there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay” … . There is also no general exception to the hearsay rule for testimony relating to background conduct, information, or explanation of a subject matter or event … . People v Harlow, 2021 NY Slip Op 03933, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

, ,

WHERE A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE PRESENTATIOIN OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE RECORD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined County Court should not have restricted the hearing to only the allegations of ineffective assistance that could not have been raised on direct appeal. Where a motion to vacate a conviction is based on evidence outside the record, as well as evidence on the record, all the evidence is admissible:

A “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a single ground or issue upon which relief is requested . . . [Such] a claim . . . ‘is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole’ ” … and must be ” ‘viewed in totality’ ” … . Although “[a] single error may qualify as ineffective assistance . . . when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , a defendant may also establish that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel by arguing that the cumulative effect of multiple errors rendered defense counsel’s performance ineffective, even if those errors, “considered separately, may not have constituted ineffective assistance”… . Where, as here, a defendant alleges errors of defense counsel based on both matters appearing in the record and matters dehors the record, i.e., a ” ‘mixed claim,’ ” a “CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim of ineffectiveness in its entirety” … . People v Mack, 2021 NY Slip Op 03982, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE STAIRWAY TO THE ATTIC, WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, WAS NOT PART OF THE APARTMENT DESCRIBED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE STAIRWAY WAS A COMMON AREA; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in a stairway leading to the attic should have been granted because the warrant did not authorize the search of that area and the People did not demonstrate the stairway was a common area:

… [T]he warrant at issue authorized a search of “865 woodlawn upper apt. buffalo, n.y. 2 ½ story wood frame house white with white trim. attached garage and common areas,” and drugs and drug packaging materials were found by the police behind a doorway on stairs leading to the attic. The doorway to the attic was in a hallway outside of the upper apartment and, as a result, the attic cannot be considered a part of the upper apartment itself … . …

The question thus becomes whether the area where the drugs and packaging materials were found constitutes a common area. Common areas of multi-unit buildings are those areas ” ‘accessible to all tenants and their invitees’ ” … . Here, the contraband was found by the police on the stairs leading to the attic, and a police officer testified at the suppression hearing that there was a closed door leading to the attic from the second floor common area. The officer in question was not present when the door was opened by other officers who executed the warrant, and he did not know whether the door had been locked. When asked whether “the door could have been locked and needed to be breached,” the officer answered, “That is entirely possible.” The People did not call any of the officers who were present when the door to the attic was opened, forcibly or otherwise, nor did they call the landlord or anyone who resided at the property.

Defendant testified that the door to the attic was closed and locked, and that, during the execution of the warrant, the door was broken down by the police. If the door was indeed locked, it cannot be said that the attic was accessible to all tenants and their invitees. People v Moore, 2021 NY Slip Op 03975, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FATAL VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE DECEDENT’S ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this fatal vehicle-pedestrian accident case. The majority held that any negligence on the part of plaintiff’s decedent constituted comparative negligence which is no longer a bar to summary judgment. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether decedent’s actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident, which would preclude summary judgment:

We respectfully disagree with the dissent that the evidence submitted by plaintiff failed to establish proximate causation. The only facts that defendants cite for the proposition that plaintiff failed to meet his burden arise from decedent’s actions, i.e., crossing outside a marked crosswalk and wearing dark clothing as daylight faded. The Court of Appeals has made clear, however, “that a plaintiff’s comparative negligence is no longer a complete defense and its absence need not be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff, but rather is only relevant to the mitigation of plaintiff’s damages” … . Thus, “to obtain partial summary judgment on defendant’s liability[, a plaintiff] does not have to demonstrate the absence of his [or her] own comparative fault” … .

… [P]laintiff was therefore not required to establish that decedent was not negligent, rather he was required to demonstrate that defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of decedent’s injuries … .

From the dissent:

Even assuming … the majority is correct that the issue of proximate cause was raised by plaintiff and that plaintiff met his burden with respect to that element, I conclude that defendants raised a triable issue of fact in opposition. Defendants presented evidence that plaintiff’s decedent was crossing … outside of a designated crosswalk, at dusk, with headphones and dark clothing on and without looking for oncoming traffic. … [D]efendants contend that decedent violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 (a). Consequently, even though defendants were negligent as a matter of law based on an unexcused violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (a), on this record, a jury could find that decedent’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Lowes v Anas, 2021 NY Slip Op 03973, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT USE ANY PHYSICAL FORCE IN REFUSING TO COOPERATE AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP; OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration second degree, determined there was no evidence the defendant used physical force. Passive refusal to cooperate after a traffic stop is not enough:

… [T]he defendant was argumentative throughout the traffic stop and arrest-booking process, repeatedly refused to answer the officers’ questions, and refused to participate physically in any way in the arrest-booking process, including refusing to stand for a photograph, to provide his fingerprints, or to sign a Miranda form … . The People concede that the defendant did not physically resist the officers, but argue that his conduct constituted physical interference because he refused to cooperate physically in the arrest-booking process. However, neither the defendant’s conduct during the traffic stop nor his conduct during the arrest-booking process constituted a knowing, physical interference with, and disruption of, the official function being performed by the officers. The defendant did not struggle, physically resist, or do anything to interfere with the officers, and he did not intrude into, or get in the way of, any ongoing police activity … . The defendant’s passive unwillingness to cooperate with the officers during the traffic stop and arrest-booking process lacked the requisite intentional physical component … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03851, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

,

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A FRYE HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA-RELATED EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court should have held a Frye hearing on the admissibility of DNA-related evidence generated by the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST):

Prior to trial, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion to preclude the People from introducing at trial DNA testing results and testimony concerning the Forensic Statistical Tool (hereinafter FST) or, in the alternative, for a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir]) to determine the admissibility of the evidence generated by the FST.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting FST evidence without first holding a Frye hearing … . As proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming without the FST evidence … , the error was not harmless … . Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Applewhite, 2021 NY Slip Op 03847, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, , ,

THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS NURSING-HOME MALPRACTICE CASE, BUT THE JUDGE DID NOT FIRST DETERMINE PLAINTIFF HAD SOME LEVEL OF COGNITIVE AWARENESS; THE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CRITERIA ARE THE SAME FOR MALPRACTICE AND FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2801-D; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the $2.5 million pain and suffering award in this nursing-home malpractice case because the jury was instructed on the elements of “conscious” pain and suffering, but the judge did not first determine plaintiff had some level of cognitive awareness. The suit alleged the nursing home’s failure to monitor plaintiff-resident’s blood sugar level led to brain injury and death. A new trial on damages was ordered. The First Department noted that the criteria for “conscious pain and suffering” damages is the same for malpractice and violation of Public Health Law 2801-d:

The court should not have allowed the jury to award damages for pain and suffering without first determining that the decedent “experienced some level of cognitive awareness following the injury”… . There is no legal basis for applying this rule in the general negligence/malpractice context but not in the context of a violation of PHL 2801-d. Although PHL 2801-d(4) provides that “[t]he remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with any other remedies available to a patient, . . . including tort causes of action, and may be granted regardless of whether such other remedies are available or are sought,” this language has been interpreted as authorizing a separate cause of action, not a separate category of damages … . Smith v Northern Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03818, First Dept 6-15-21

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT WAS ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CONDUCTING A NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (NPE) OF PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to a neuropsychological examination (NPE) of the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3121:

… [W]e agree with defendants that the preclusion order sought by plaintiff is not warranted inasmuch as the NPE is material and necessary to defend against plaintiff’s claims that he sustained head injuries and cognitive impairment ”’ . Here, plaintiff placed his mental and physical condition in controversy by alleging in the verified complaint, as amplified by the verified bills of particulars, that he injured, inter alia, his head, neck, spine, left wrist and left elbow and suffered “emotional and psychological pain . . . with related mental anguish, stress, and anxiety” as a result of the accident. Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in opposition to the motion established, inter alia, that plaintiff’s neurologist and psychologist had both ordered neuropsychological evaluations of plaintiff that had not been conducted, and that the requested NPE differs significantly from neurologic and neurosurgical examinations. In particular, defendants submitted an affidavit from the neuropsychologist who would conduct the NPE, who averred that he would utilize a different methodology, would administer a different battery of psychological tests, and would complete more detailed cognitive testing to determine the existence of any mood or behavioral deficits resulting from plaintiff’s alleged injuries, whereas the testing done by neurologists and neurosurgeons generally focuses on physical abnormalities and physical manifestations of those abnormalities. Pokorski v FDA Logistics, 2021 NY Slip Op 03770, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH ONE OF THREE STATEMENTS MADE TO A DETECTIVE AFTER DEFENDANT HAD INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS, ITS ADMISSION WAS HARMLESS ERROR; THE DISSENT ARGUED ALL THREE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that two of three statements made after defendant had invoked his right to counsel were spontaneous and properly admitted. The third statement was deemed a response to the functional equivalent of interrogation, but its admission was harmless error. The dissent argued that all three statements should have been suppressed and the constitutional error was not harmless:

[The] statements were made by defendant after the interrogation ceased and while a detective was sitting next to him, completing the arrest paperwork. After the detective asked him certain pedigree questions, defendant asked “How’s Annie doing?,” referring to decedent’s wife. The detective replied that she was “hurt” and said that she “lost the person she loved the most in life.” The detective then asked defendant if he wanted another coffee or soda and, after defendant responded that he would like another cup of coffee, he started crying. The detective whispered “good response” and told him “that’s remorse.” There was a brief interruption when another detective opened the door to the interview room and discussed lunch plans with the first detective, and the first detective then asked defendant if he was hungry. Defendant responded “yeah,” and then stated “it wasn’t supposed to happen like that” and that he “didn’t mean for any of that to happen” (first statement). After the detective responded “I understand,” defendant stated “I just wanted to prank ’em just like jig ’em” (second statement). After the detective responded with several statements including that “remorse is what we wanted to see” and that the police did not think that defendant’s intentions were to kill anyone, defendant said “I should’ve just stuck around. Maybe I coulda [sic] done something” (third statement). * * *

With respect to the third statement, we agree with defendant that it was not spontaneous because it was made in response to the functional equivalent of express questioning by the detective … . People v Bowen, 2021 NY Slip Op 03685, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR AN EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM DEFENDANT WOULD BE LIABLE PURSUANT TO RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined there was a question of fact about the liability of the delivery company under respondeat superior. Supreme Court determined the driver was an independent contractor and the company was therefore not liable:

An entity that retains an independent contractor generally is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts … . Whether a relationship between a delivery company and its drivers ” ‘is that of employees or independent contractors involves a question of fact as to whether there is evidence of either control over the results produced or over the means used to achieve the results’ ” … . Here, defendant’s own evidentiary submissions established that defendant rented the delivery truck that was involved in the accident, was empowered to install its own signage on the truck, designed the delivery routes, set the times for the deliveries, and required drivers to submit incident reports following any accidents, thereby raising a question of fact with respect to the nature of the employment relationship … . Raymond v Hillebert, 2021 NY Slip Op 03684, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

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