You are here: / Evidence
,

THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLES; SEIZED ITEMS PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the search warrant did not authorize the search of defendant’s vehicles and the items seized were properly suppressed:

The requirement that warrants must describe with particularity the places, vehicles, and persons to be searched is vital to judicial supervision of the warrant process … . Warrants “interpose the detached and independent judgment of a neutral Magistrate between the interested viewpoint of those engaged in ferreting out crime and potential encroachments on the sanctity and privacy of the individual” … . To further that role, our constitution assigns to the magistrate the tasks of evaluating whether probable cause exists to initiate a search and defining the subjects to be searched … .

The particularity requirement protects the magistrate’s determination regarding the permissible scope of the search. Thus, to be valid, a search warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . So important is the role of the neutral and detached magistrate that we have in the past parted ways from federal constitutional jurisprudence when we believed that an emerging rule of federal constitutional law “dilute[s] . . . the requirements of judicial supervision in the warrant process” …

… The application contained no mention of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. Indeed, the observed pattern, as described in the affidavit, was for Mr. Gordon [defendant] to proceed from the residence to the street and back, without detouring to any vehicles parked at the residence. … “[N]o observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the [vehicles]” … that would substantiate a belief that the vehicles searched were utilized in the alleged criminal activity.

Nor do we believe that the warrant for Mr. Gordon’s “person” or “premises”—in the context of the factual allegations averred by the detectives—authorized a search of the vehicles. … [T]he mere presence of a vehicle seen at the sight of premises wherein the police suspect criminal activity to be occurring does not by itself provide probable cause to search the vehicle … . People v Gordon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01093, CtApp 2-18-21

 

, ,

THE ESTATE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the estate was not a necessary party in this foreclosure action and the referee’s finding were based on unproduced business records:

“The rule is that a mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all his [or her] interest in the mortgaged premises, including his [or her] equity of redemption, is not a necessary party to foreclosure, unless a deficiency judgment is sought on his [or her] bond” … . Here, [decedent] conveyed all of the interest in the subject property prior to his death, and prior to the commencement of the instant action. Moreover, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to remove any language seeking a deficiency, and the court granted that motion.

However, “the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Home & Prop. Works, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01031, Second Dept 2-17-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not establish it had negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f):

The plaintiff was not in possession of the note at the time of commencement of the action. Further, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that it was authorized to act on behalf of FHLBC to commence the foreclosure action, since the plaintiff did not submit any power of attorney, servicing agreement, or other agreement authorizing the plaintiff to commence this action … . Moreover, the affidavits relied upon by the plaintiff contained only conclusory assertions that the plaintiff was the loan servicer, without asserting the existence of any agreement delegating to the plaintiff the authority to commence this action on FHLBC’s behalf in 2012. * * *

… [T]here is no evidence that the plaintiff attempted to obtain a waiver of the investor’s self-employment restriction, which, according to the plaintiff’s own denial letter, was the reason for its denial of the defendant’s first and second loan modification applications. …

Since the defendant’s submissions raise a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to resolve this action through loan modification or other potential workout options … , the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine this issue before deciding that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Lofria, 2021 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-17-21

 

,

DEFENDANT, A MEMBER OF THE PROUD BOYS, WAS CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT OF A MEMBER OF ANTIFA; A BOOT IS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE PROUD BOYS AND ANTIFA PROPERLY ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the conviction of a member of the Proud Boys for the attempted gang assault of an Antifa member. The court held that a boot may constitute a dangerous instrument within the meaning of the assault statutes. In addition, the First Department noted that the People were properly allowed to call an expert witness on extremist groups to explain the animosity between the Proud Boys and Antifa:

Defendants’ intent and attempt to cause physical injury were demonstrated by defendant Kinsman, who while wearing brown leather boots, repeatedly kicked the victim while she was still on the ground and after she had just been repeatedly kicked by another Proud Boy and by defendant Hare who punched the victim and also kicked her multiple times while he was wearing Doc Marten boots … . …

The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to call an expert witness on extremist groups. Some background information regarding the ideology and past conduct of the Proud Boys was permissible to explain the preexisting animosity between the Proud Boys and Antifa at the time of the incident at issue … . … While some of the evidence regarding the Proud Boys’ practices, and in particular racist remarks made by the group’s founder, were immaterial to the issues at trial, and their potential for prejudice outweighed any probative value, the court issued a limiting instruction that the background information provided by the expert was not proof of the defendants’ mental states. People v Kinsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01009, First Dept 2-15-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION HE WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT FLED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in criminal activity at the time he fled and the police pursued him. Therefore his suppression motion (re: a discarded weapon and statements) should have been granted and the indictment dismissed. Defendant was a passenger in the back seat of a car stopped for a traffic infraction. When the occupants were asked to step out of the car, defendant ran:

… [T]he officers stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction as opposed to a call related to a particular crime. Although defendant appeared to reach toward his waistband, he never touched his waistband and there was no other indication of a weapon, such as a bulge or the visible outline of a gun … . A suspect’s action in grabbing at his or her waistband, standing alone, is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of a crime … .

Defendant’s nervousness, use of a bottle cap, and “blading” do not provide additional specific circumstances indicating that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. There is no doubt that defendant engaged in furtive and suspicious activity and that his pattern of behavior, viewed as a whole, was suspicious, but there is nothing in this record to establish that the officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct to justify the pursuit … . People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 00983, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCOMPLICE WAS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED; THE INDICTMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed because there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice:

The People contend that County Court erred in determining that the grand jury testimony of defendant’s accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. We agree. The corroboration requirement is satisfied by evidence that ” ‘tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth’ ” … . Sufficient corroboration may be provided by evidence that ” ‘harmonize[s]’ ” with the accomplice testimony, i.e., when “read with the accomplice’s testimony, [it] makes it more likely that the defendant committed the offense” … .

Here, the accomplice’s testimony that, on a specific date, defendant and the accomplice had a telephone conversation regarding the alleged criminal conduct is corroborated by defendant’s cell phone records, which establish “that cell phone calls were made as the accomplice[] testified” … . The accomplice’s testimony is also corroborated by, among other things, the testimony of non-accomplices and the transcript of the criminal jury trial during which the charged offenses were allegedly committed  … . People v Baska, 2021 NY Slip Op 00947, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

AN OFFICER MAY FOLLOW A SUSPECT IN A POLICE VEHICLE; THE OFFICER DID NOT GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASE THE DEFENDANT UNTIL HE SAW THE DEFENDANT DISCARD A WEAPON; THE SEIZURE OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant did not discard a weapon in response to unlawful police conduct. Therefore the weapon should not have been suppressed. In response to a 911 call a police officer in a car was observing the defendant. The officer pursued the defendant only after he saw the defendant discard a weapon:

As the … officer approached the scene, he observed defendant in a black coat walking westbound on the sidewalk. Upon seeing the third officer in his vehicle, defendant ran down a driveway. The … officer pulled into the driveway of that residence and, while still in the vehicle, observed defendant toss what appeared to be a long-barreled handgun over the fence while he ran. It was at that point that the third officer exited his vehicle and chased defendant, ultimately apprehending him. A loaded .22-caliber firearm was found on the ground in the backyard adjacent to the driveway.

… “[A]]n officer may use his or her vehicle to unobtrusively follow and observe an individual without elevating the encounter to a level three pursuit” … . A police-civilian encounter will escalate to a level three encounter, i.e., a forcible stop or seizure, “whenever an individual’s freedom of movement is significantly impeded . . . Illustrative is police action which restricts an individual’s freedom of movement by pursuing one who, for whatever reason, is fleeing to avoid police contact” … .

Here, the … officer had activated his emergency lights en route to the scene and before he encountered defendant. Upon observing defendant walking on the sidewalk, the third officer stopped his vehicle in a driveway. At no point did the third officer engage in any particularized act toward defendant or restrict his freedom of movement … . People v Moore, 2021 NY Slip Op 00927, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

USING ANOTHER’S CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER TO MAKE PURCHASES, WITHOUT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CARD, SUPPORTS A GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that using a credit card number without physically possessing the credit card itself supported the grand larceny conviction:

The primary question presented by this appeal is whether the definition of credit card for purposes of Penal Law § 155.00 (7) includes the credit card account number, such that the People need not prove that a defendant physically possessed the tangible credit card in order to support a conviction of grand larceny based upon credit card theft. Here, defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree was based on defendant’s theft of the victim’s credit card account number to purchase goods, although there was no evidence that defendant possessed the physical card itself. We conclude that the definition of credit card in General Business Law § 511 (1), as supplemented by General Business Law § 511-a, is the controlling definition as designated by Penal Law § 155.00 (7) and, as a result, the evidence is legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of grand larceny for stealing an intangible credit card account number. People v Badji, 2021 NY Slip Op 00897, CtApp 2-11-21

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND PARAPHERNALIA IN AN APARTMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a bench trial, determined the evidence that defendant constructively possessed drug and paraphernalia was insufficient. The “possession” convictions, therefore, were against the weight of the evidence:

Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time the police executed the search warrant, no other evidence was presented “to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that he regularly frequented it” … . Two of the police officers testified that they did not discover anything that belonged to defendant on the premises. The clothing, cell phone, and identification found on the premises belonged instead to other men who were present in the apartment during the execution of the search warrant. Photographs found on the premises included the other men but not defendant. While defendant admitted that he had been at the apartment on one other occasion, the evidence did not otherwise specifically connect defendant to the apartment in which the contraband was found. We thus conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion and control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 00923, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE WARRANT CORRECTLY DESCRIBED THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE POLICE; DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION THE RESIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE APARTMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SWORN AFFIDAVITS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the defendant’s motion to suppress, alleging the premises to be searched was not adequately described in the warrant, was properly denied without a hearing. The warrant described a single family residence. Defendant alleged each of the three floors was a separate apartment. The Court of Appeals looked only at the evidence supporting the warrant and held the evidence available to the police established the building was a single residence. The defendant did not submit any sworn affidavits in support of the “three apartments” argument, so the motion court properly denied the motion without holding a hearing:

The warrant’s description of the place to be searched as “a private residence,” located at a unique, specified street address, was not facially deficient; given a commonsense reading, the warrant clearly commanded a search of “a” single residence, not a multi-unit building, at the marked street address. Because the warrant was facially sufficient, the case does not implicate the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Groh v Ramirez that courts may not rely on documents not incorporated and attached to the warrant in order to provide particularity that the warrant, on its face, lacks (see 540 US at 557-558). The motion court did not rely on the unincorporated warrant application materials to cure a facial deficiency in the warrant, which Groh forbids. Rather, the court considered those materials for a different purpose—to determine whether the warrant’s description of the place to be searched as a single private residence was supported by the information available to the detective who applied for the warrant and the court that issued the warrant. * * *

In People v Mendoza, we held that a suppression motion’s “factual sufficiency should be determined with reference to the face of the pleadings, the context of the motion and defendant’s access to information” (82 NY2d at 422; see also People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 729 [2001]). Although [defendant] lacked access to the materials that were before the warrant court, he had ready access to information about the actual conditions of the premises at the time of the search, but failed to provide it in support of his suppression motion. For example, he, his mother, or any other resident of the premises could have provided sworn affidavits or other evidence as to the separateness of the alleged residences on the three floors; the existence of unrelated tenants on the second floor; the obviousness to a visitor that the building contained separate residences—such as allegations that each unit had separate locking entry doors—or a variety of other types of evidence plainly known to residents of the house. People v Duval, 2021 NY Slip Op 00896, CtApp 2-11-21

 

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