You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO OFFER A SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION ABOUT HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE STEP STOOL SHE WAS STANDING ON COLLAPSED; THE DEFENSE EXPERT TESTIFIED SHE COULD HAVE FALLEN ONTO THE STOOL; THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verdict in this products liability case should have been set aside. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when a step stool collapsed as she stood on it. The defendant’s expert testified she could have fallen onto the stool. There was no evidence in the record to support the expert’s opinion, which was objected to by plaintiff. The defense verdict, therefore, should have been set aside:

Following the accident, one of the injured plaintiff’s coworkers discarded the step stool in the trash. At the trial on the issue of liability, the defendant’s expert testified, over the plaintiffs’ objection, that the injured plaintiff’s accident may have occurred because she slipped and fell onto the step stool. Over the plaintiffs’ objection, the jury was asked the question: “Did the subject step stool collapse under the [injured] plaintiff while she was standing on it on October 22, 2013, causing the [injured] plaintiff’s accident?” The jury answered “No,” thereby finding in favor of the defendant on the ground that the accident did not occur as the injured plaintiff said it did. * * *

We agree with the plaintiffs that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of whether the subject step stool collapsed as the injured plaintiff stood on it causing her accident, that the jury could not have reached the verdict it did by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Moreover, the testimony of the defendant’s expert that the accident may have happened because the injured plaintiff fell onto the step stool was speculative, lacked support in the record, and should not have been admitted in evidence … . Montesione v Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01253, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION OUTSIDE THE EXPERT’S FIELD AND DID NOT REBUT THE OPINIONS OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not raise a question of fact because there was no foundation for the expert’s opining outside the expert’s field of emergency medicine:

The affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert, a physician with training in emergency medicine, lacked probative value as it failed to specify that the expert had any specific training or expertise in neurology or in the diagnosis and treatment of strokes, or how she became familiar with the applicable standards of care … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s expert failed to rebut the opinions of the defendant’s expert or articulate how the defendant’s alleged deviations from the accepted standard of care were a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Laughtman v Long Is. Jewish Val. Stream, 2021 NY Slip Op 01251, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff husband in this divorce action was properly sanctioned for spoliation of evidence by striking from the complaint the causes of action seeking spousal support, equitable distribution and attorney’s fees. The husband had installed spyware which allowed interception of defendant wife’s phone calls. Evidence of what was intercepted was destroyed. It was assumed that the interceptions violated defendant wife’s attorney-client privilege:

… Supreme Court properly drew the presumption of relevance in connection with the interception by the plaintiff of privileged communications between the defendant and her attorney in view of the plaintiff’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about it at his deposition, his intentional destruction of electronic records, and the evidence that he had utilized spyware to record the defendant’s conversations when she was in the vicinity of her attorney’s office. Although this presumption is rebuttable … the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to rebut it. Further, while the striking of pleadings is a drastic remedy, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in striking the causes of action in the plaintiff’s complaint seeking financial relief other than child support. “Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” … . … ” …  Where appropriate, a court can impose the ultimate sanction of dismissing the action or striking responsive pleadings, thereby rendering a judgment by default against the offending party” … . C.C. v A.R., 2021 NY Slip Op 01243, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing County Court and remitting the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, determined defendant’s motion was made pursuant to CPL 220.60, not CPL 330.30. Therefore the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrating his innocence of the charged crime could properly be considered. County Court had not considered the motion because the supporting evidence was outside the record:

The defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was clearly made pursuant to CPL 220.60(3), and the County Court should not have deemed it to be a motion to set aside a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1). CPL 220.60(3) provides that “[a]t any time before the imposition of sentence, the court in its discretion may permit a defendant who has entered a plea of guilty . . . to withdraw such plea, and in such event the entire indictment, as it existed at the time of such plea, is restored” … . “The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” … . In general, “such a motion must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea” … . “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … .

Here, the County Court, improperly relying upon CPL 330.30(1), determined that the defendant’s submissions in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea were outside the record and did not consider them. People v Murphy, 2021 NY Slip Op 08203, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS CULPABLE IN THE SEVERE BEATING BY MOTHER AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEATH OF THE CHILD, THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO “PARENTS” AS OPPOSED TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE;” BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD BEATEN BY MOTHER, THE SEVERE ABUSE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021, THIS OPINION WAS VACATED AND THE SEVERE ABUSE FINDINGS AGAINST FATHER WERE UPHELD FOR ALL FOUR CHILDREN, NOT JUST FATHER’S BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN. REVISED DECISION-SUMMARY TO FOLLOW.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing the severe abuse and derivative severe abuse adjudications against the father regarding mother’s biological children, otherwise affirmed the abuse and severe abuse and derivative abuse and derivative severe abuse adjudications, The severe abuse statute, unlike the abuse statute, permits only a finding against a parent (as opposed to a person legally responsible for the child). Because father was not the biological father of the child who died after a severe beating by mother, the severe abuse statute did not apply:

… [W]ith respect to Family Court’s determination that the father severely abused the deceased child and derivatively severely abused the older daughter and the older son, we are reluctantly constrained to reverse said findings. As this Court has previously made clear, and as petitioner and the attorney for the child concede, unlike findings of abuse and neglect, which may be made against “any parent or other person legally responsible for a child’s care” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [a] …), the current statutory language contained in Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i) only permits a finding of severe abuse to be made against a child’s “parent” … . Although we are satisfied that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father’s failure to intervene to stop the brutal beating of the deceased child or thereafter take any action to provide her with life-saving medical care would otherwise satisfy the elements of severe abuse as against her … and, consequently, derivative severe abuse as against the older daughter and the older son … , because he is not the biological father of these children, Family Court was statutorily precluded from rendering such findings and we, therefore, are constrained to reverse same … . Matter of Lazeria F. (Paris H.), 2021 NY Slip Op 01096, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

THE CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT SEXUAL TOUCHING WERE ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED AND FATHER’S EXPLANATION FOR THE TOUCHING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence supported sexual abuse and neglect by respondent-father. The child’s statements were sufficiently corroborated and the father’s explanation for touching the child was not credible:

… [T]he proof of the child’s consistent descriptions of the inappropriate touching to various individuals, the child’s dramatic change in behavior, the reenactment of the touching through sand and play therapy and respondent’s admissions satisfied the relatively low threshold of corroboration … . Matter of Lily BB. (Stephen BB.), 021 NY Slip Op 01106, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEAVING AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY UNSUPERVISED CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE; THE BOY, WHO WAS VISITING HIS 13-YEAR-OLD FRIEND’S HOME, WAS SEVERELY INJURED ATTEMPTING TO DO A FLIP OFF A PICNIC TABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined whether defendant was negligent in leaving an eleven-year-old boy unsupervised for six hours is a question of fact. School had been cancelled because of snow and defendant went to work. The boy was severely injured when he attempted to do a flip off a picnic table in the backyard:

“The adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for the jury” …. It is undisputed that the child was left unattended without any adult supervision for approximately six hours. Although some may argue that it is not unreasonable to leave a child his age unsupervised to allow a parent to go to work, there is no bright line test with regard to age, and we are loathe to impose same. When viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a question of fact exists as to whether Beadle exercised reasonable supervision of the 11-year-old child. As to proximate cause, we discern no reason under the facts here to deviate from the general rule that proximate cause is a jury question … . Justin M. v Beadle, 021 NY Slip Op 01108, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE EYEWITNESS’S ABILITY TO SEE THE SHOOTING AND THE DEFENDANT’S WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, after a hearing, should have been granted on ineffective assistance grounds. Defense counsel was aware of three witnesses who called into question whether the eyewitness to the shooting was outside where she could have seen the shooting, or inside where she could not. In addition defense counsel was aware of an alibi witness. Defense counsel did not sufficiently investigate these witnesses:

… [T]he case against defendant centered, in part, upon the identification of him as the shooter by the eyewitness. The witnesses identified in the letter sent by the People would have cast further doubt on the eyewitness’ identification testimony, as well as whether she could have even seen the shooting. Yet, the record reflects that counsel made little efforts to reach out to these witnesses and minimal follow-up efforts.

Defendant also argues that he received ineffective assistance due to counsel’s failure to investigate an alibi witness. At the hearing, defendant’s uncle testified that defendant was with him in a house at the time of the shooting and that they were nowhere near the area where the shooting occurred. The uncle further stated that he was willing to testify at trial and left numerous voice messages for defendant’s counsel. Defendant’s counsel testified that she did not receive any voice messages from the uncle but recalled that the uncle would be an alibi witness. Other than stating in a conclusory manner that she was unable to locate the uncle, the record fails to show diligent attempts by counsel to reach him. The uncle’s testimony would have bolstered the defense by providing the jury with conflicting evidence as to defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting. In our view, the failure to investigate this potential alibi defense and the witnesses who would have refuted the eyewitness’ location at the time of the shooting cannot be considered a reasonable trial strategy … . People v Lanier, 2021 NY Slip Op 01094, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

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

 

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