You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE NEAR A SUSPECTED DRUG HOUSE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA GAVE RISE TO ONLY A GROUNDED SUSPICION; THE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, WHICH ENCOMPASSED AN UNRELATED OFFENSE, WAS VACATED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a suppression motion and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined  defendant’s presence near a suspected drug house gave rise only to a founded suspicion which would justify an approach and a common inquiry by the police. Instead, the police attempted to stop the car in which defendant was a passenger and arrested defendant after he ran into his residence. Cocaine and heroin were seized from the defendant. The Fourth Department held that all the seized evidence and the showup identification should have been suppressed. In addition, the court vacated the entire guilty plea which encompassed an unrelated offense:

A detective who could see only the front area of the residence to be searched observed multiple people whom he suspected to be customers arrive at and depart from the back area of the residence through the driveway. The detective also twice saw defendant come to the front yard of the residence to smoke a cigarette then return to the back area. Defendant eventually left the residence as a passenger in a vehicle. The detective conveyed the vehicle’s plate number and direction of travel to an officer in a “take down” car, who followed defendant and attempted to effect a stop of the vehicle by activating the patrol vehicle’s lights. The vehicle in which defendant was a passenger slowed and defendant jumped out and fled on foot into his own residence, where he was arrested soon after and found to be in possession of cocaine and heroin. …

Based on defendant’s proximity to a suspected drug house and his otherwise innocuous behavior … , the officer had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted him to approach defendant and make a common-law inquiry … . The mere fact that defendant was located in an alleged high crime area “does not supply that requisite reasonable suspicion, in the absence of ‘other objective indicia of criminality’ . . . , and no such evidence was presented at the suppression hearing” … . …

… [A]lthough defendant’s conviction of a second count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree arises from a separate incident, his plea of guilty “was expressly conditioned on the negotiated agreement that [he] would receive concurrent sentences on the separate counts to which he pleaded,” and thus the plea must be vacated in its entirety … . People v Martinez-Gonzalez, 2020 NY Slip Op 06593, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

A CRUCIAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF A MEDICAID LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A BUSINESS RECORD; THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY AN EMPLOYEE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE ENTITY WHICH PROVIDED THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a crucial document needed to determine the amount of a Medicaid lien should not have been admitted as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518 and 2307. The Department of Social Services (DSS) introduced a State Department of Health (SDOH) document, a claim detail report (CDR), which collected data provided by another entity (CSRA), but the certification was not by a person familiar with the business and record-keeping practices of CSRA:

DSS sought to lay the requisite foundation for admission of the CDR as a business record by way of the certification of an SDOH employee (see CPLR 2307, 4518 [c]). The certification stated, in relevant part, “that the annexed [CDR] is a true and accurate copy of the original [CDR], which was generated from data contained in the Adjudicated Claim File. The Adjudicated Claim File, a comprehensive computer data file, is created, maintained and transported in the form of magnetic media to the [SDOH] by CSRA, Inc. [(CSRA)], a fiscal intermediary which contracts with the [SDOH].” Thus, the certification clearly states that the data sought to be admitted in evidence via the CDR was “created” and “maintained” by CSRA, a third-party entity. The SDOH employee who certified the CDR did not, however, work for CSRA, i.e., the entrant of the information upon which the CDR is based. Further, although the certification stated that the CDR was “produced” in the regular course of SDOH’s business and that the data entries were “transported” to SDOH “at or about the time that such data [was] received and incorporated into the Adjudicated Claim File,” the SDOH employee did not establish that CSRA, as “entrant[,] was under a business duty to obtain and record the” data reflected in the Adjudicated Claim File … , or that he was familiar with the record-keeping practices of CSRA and that SDOH generally relied upon CSRA’s records … . At best, the certification demonstrated only that SDOH filed and retained the data created and maintained by CSRA, which fails to establish the requisite foundation … . Matter of Joseph M.W. (Blake), 2020 NY Slip Op 06583, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , , ,

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND AGENCY ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY PLED VICARIOUS LIABILTY FOR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE NURSING HOME DEFENDANTS FOR AN ASSAULT BY A RESIDENT ON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THE COMPLAINT ALSO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PUBLIC HEALTH LAW VIOLATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately stated negligence and Public Health Law causes of action against a nursing home facility stemming from an assault on plaintiff’s decedent by another resident. The Fourth Department found the complaint adequately alleged the criteria for piercing the corporate veil, the criteria for an agency relationship among the defendants, and for a Public Health Law cause of action. The court further found plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended complaint should have been granted:

… Plaintiff alleges that the … defendants were operated in such a way “as if they were one by commingling them on an interchangeable basis or convoluted separate properties, records or control.” Significantly, plaintiff alleged that the corporate formalities were conduits to avoid obligations to the facility’s residents, and thus the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for negligence under a theory of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego … . …

… [P]laintiff’s claims in the negligence cause of action that defendants are vicariously liable under theories of agency and joint venture are … sufficiently stated. “The elements of a joint venture are an agreement of the parties manifesting their intent to associate as joint venturers, mutual contributions to the joint undertaking, some degree of joint control over the enterprise, and a mechanism for the sharing of profits and losses” … . “Agency . . . is a fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent of one person to allow another to act on his or her behalf and subject to his or her control, and consent by the other so to act” … . Plaintiff alleges in the first amended complaint that defendants acted as agents for one another and, as relevant here, that they ratified the acts of one another regarding, inter alia, operation of the facility, allocation of resources, and mismanagement of the facility. …

Plaintiff alleged that in addition to residential care, the facility provided “health-related services,” including specialized dementia care, dietary supervision, hygiene and on-site medical and psychological care. Accepting those facts as alleged in the first amended complaint as true, and affording every possible favorable inference to plaintiff, we conclude plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts to overcome defendants’ argument that the facility is an assisted living facility and not subject to those sections of the Public Health Law … . Cunningham v Mary Agnes Manor Mgt., L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 06582, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS’ AFFIDAVITS WERE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ONE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS WERE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINIONS IN AREAS OUTSIDE THEIR PARTICULAR FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiff’s experts’ affidavits were conclusory and speculative with respect to defendant Neurological Associates and defendant Radiology Associates’ experts were qualified to offer their opinions. The complaint alleged plaintiff’s decedent’s brain tumor was not timely detected and treated:

… [P]laintiff’s experts “failed to provide any factual basis for [their] conclusion[s]” that Neurological Associates deviated from the standard of care in surgically resecting the tumor, documenting the resection, and advising decedent as to post-operative radiation and, therefore, the experts’ affidavits “lacked probative force and [were] insufficient as a matter of law to overcome” the motion with respect to those claims … . … [P]laintiff’s submissions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether any … deviation was a proximate cause of decedent’s injuries …  and offered only conclusory and speculative assertions that earlier detection of recurrence and additional treatment would have produced a different outcome for decedent … . …

… .Radiology Associates’ experts, who were board certified neurosurgeons, were qualified to offer opinions on the emergency department radiology services provided to decedent … , inasmuch as the experts “possessed the requisite skill, training, knowledge and experience to render . . . reliable opinion[s]” in this case … . It is well settled that “[a] physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge in a particular area of expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony” … . Martingano v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 06618, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STOP AND FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after trial and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a concurring opinion, determined the robbery conviction was against the weight of the evidence and the showup identification should have been suppressed. The opinion is comprehensive, well worth study, and cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [T]here is considerable objective evidence supporting defendant’s innocence. Defendant was found standing in a driveway half a mile from the crime scene only seven minutes after it occurred, wearing clothing different from the clothing worn by the gunman. He was not in possession of the fruits of the crime or of a firearm. There was no testimony that he was out of breath or that he displayed other signs of having recently run a distance. To the contrary, his boots were not even laced. The possibility that he changed clothes and hid the items in his companion’s residence across the street was questionable in the first instance given the timing of the events, and was severely undercut by the fact that the police obtained permission to search the residence and did so without finding anything linking defendant to the crime. Furthermore, the police investigation established that a person other than defendant possessed the fruits of the robbery, particularly the victim’s cell phone, and that person’s act in fleeing from the police when the phone alarm sounded was indicative of consciousness of guilt … . Other objective evidence, particularly the dog tracking, established that the gunman never turned west off of Genesee Street toward the place where defendant was found, but continued to run down Genesee Street in a southerly direction. * * *​

The testimony of the officer who initiated this street encounter established that he explored only “one of” several side streets in a residential neighborhood and seized the first young black man in a hooded sweatshirt who he found. It must be plainly stated—the law does not allow the police to stop and frisk any young black man within a half-mile radius of an armed robbery based solely upon a general description.

FROM THE CONCURRENCE:

In my view, reversal is required here solely on the ground that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the showup identification testimony because it was not sufficiently attenuated from the police officer’s unlawful stop and detention of defendant … . People v Miller, 2020 NY Slip Op 06667, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger. The seized evidence should have been suppressed. The officer who stopped the car had heard gunshots, drove in the direction of the shots, passed two intersecting streets, and then saw defendant’s car moving slowly:

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” here … , we conclude that the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct … . As noted, the People established that the police stopped the vehicle less than two minutes after hearing the shots fired, the incident occurred in the early morning hours, the police did not see any pedestrian or vehicular traffic other than the subject vehicle after the shots were fired, and the vehicle was found in proximity to the location of the shots fired. The police, however, were not given a description of the vehicle involved or even informed whether there was a vehicle involved … , the officer did not give any testimony regarding whether he saw any pedestrian or vehicle traffic before hearing the shots fired … , and the vehicle was not fleeing from the area where shots were fired … . Rather, the subject vehicle was simply a vehicle that was in the general vicinity of the area where shots were heard … . As the officer correctly recognized, the police had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to justify a common-law right to inquire … , but they did not have the required reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle. People v Fitts, 2020 NY Slip Op 06654, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence submitted by defendant subcontractor in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action conclusively established defendant did not have the authority to supervise of control the work which caused plaintiff’s injury. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 was properly granted re the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action and should have been granted re the common law negligence cause of action:

… [T]he court properly granted defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the Labor Law causes of action because defendant submitted documentary evidence “conclusively establish[ing]” … that, “as a subcontractor, it did not have the authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiff’s injury and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200 . . . or 241 (6)” … . … [T]he documentary evidence belies plaintiff’s allegation that he is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between his employer and defendant … . … [G]iven the documentary evidence submitted in support of defendant’s motion, … the court should have also granted the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the common-law negligence cause of action against defendant … . Eberhardt v G&J Contr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT USED THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE VICTIM WHEN THE VICTIM WAS STANDING, THE VICTIM FELL TO THE SIDEWALK, AND DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO PUNCH THE VICTIM, CAUSING THE VICTIM’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the reckless assault conviction, determined the allegation the defendant used the concrete sidewalk as a dangerous instrument was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1] [intentional assault], [4] [reckless assault]), arising from an altercation during which he punched the victim in the face approximately three times, causing the victim to fall and hit his head on the concrete sidewalk, then continued to punch the victim while he was lying on the ground unconscious. The victim died as a result of his injuries. * * *

Although a sidewalk or concrete surface can be “used” as a dangerous instrument … , the testimony of the eyewitnesses establishes that the blows to the victim, which were delivered using a cross-wise motion, were not executed in such a way as to establish that defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the victim’s head would have contact with the concrete … . Under the circumstances presented, there is no “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational [person]” could conclude that defendant recklessly used the sidewalk as a dangerous instrument … . People v Desius, 2020 NY Slip Op 06611, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH A NARROW PASSAGEWAY; THE POLICE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT AND THE HANDGUN DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the police, who followed defendant in a police car as he walked through a narrow passageway (a cut-through) between two streets, were not in pursuit of defendant. Therefore the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly seized:

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer responding to the sound of gunshots observed a person walking towards him a few blocks away from the location of the incident. The officer lost sight of the person before he was able to speak with him to determine whether the person had heard the gunshots, but he relayed over the police radio a generic physical description of the person he had encountered and that person’s location. Shortly thereafter, a second police officer encountered defendant not far from the radioed position. The second officer engaged defendant in a brief conversation from her patrol vehicle, after which defendant entered a nearby cut-through—i.e., a pedestrian pathway that connected two streets. When defendant first entered the cut-through, the second officer did not consider him a suspect in the shooting and he was not engaged in any unlawful activity. Nonetheless, the second officer, still in her patrol vehicle and now accompanied by another officer in a separate patrol vehicle, followed defendant along the pathway, maintaining a distance of about five feet from defendant. The cut-through was so narrow at one point that the officers would not have been able to open the doors of their patrol vehicles. When defendant reached the end of the cut-through, he removed a handgun from his pocket and ran. As he ran, defendant discarded the handgun and was thereafter arrested. * * *

The police did not activate their vehicles’ overhead lights or sirens, exit their vehicles, or significantly limit defendant’s freedom of movement along the pedestrian path … . Indeed, defendant remained free to keep walking down the path, even if at one point on the path he could not have turned around and traveled in the opposite direction. People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 06594, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 scaffold-fall case should have been granted. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were granted because the court found defendants exempt pursuant to the homeowner exemption. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the jury found the defendant homeowner (Nielson) was negligent in striking the scaffold with a Bobcat, but also illogically found the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we conclude that different inferences could be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether Nielson had authority to or exercised authority to direct or control the work. Affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a rational process by which a jury could find that the defendants were not exempt from liability by reason of the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and could find that they were liable under Labor Law § 200 … .

We note that, in the interest of judicial economy, the better practice would have been for the Supreme Court to reserve determination on the motion for a directed verdict on the Labor Law causes of action, and allow those causes of action to go to the jury. “There is little to gain and much to lose by granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law after . . . the evidence has been submitted to the jury and before the jury has rendered a verdict. If the appellate court disagrees, there is no verdict to reinstate and the trial must be repeated” … . …

Assuming that Nielson struck the scaffold with the Bobcat, which was the only theory of common-law negligence presented by the plaintiff, then it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Thus, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find Nielson negligent without also finding proximate cause. Brewer v Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

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