You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS GIVEN NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO TAKE A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WARRANT APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO ASSESS PROBABLE CAUSE; A VIDEO DEPICTING DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant was not entitled to review the application for the warrant to collect DNA evidence from the defendant’s person before the warrant was issued. Defense counsel was given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the application and did not contest the reasonableness of the bodily intrusion at that time. The Appellate Division held (1) the defense was entitled to review the search warrant application before the warrant was issued (to assess probable cause) and (2) a video depicting the defendant was not properly authenticated. The Court of Appeals reversed on both issues:

The [Appellate Division] held that Supreme Court erred in precluding defense counsel from reviewing the search warrant application and in denying counsel the opportunity to be heard on the issue of probable cause. The Court rejected the People’s argument that Abe A. [56 NY2d 288] requires notice only for the first level of intrusion—seizure of the person—and held that the due process requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard is likewise required for the subsequent search and seizure of corporeal evidence. The Court also held that the People failed to adequately authenticate the YouTube video … . * * *

It is evident that Abe A.’s requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard in the pre-execution stage of a warrant authorizing the seizure of evidence by bodily intrusion was satisfied in this case. Defense counsel, having received notice of the hearing on the warrant, was given an opportunity to be heard on the application, other than on the issue of probable cause. Counsel failed to direct any argument to the nature of the intrusion, the value of comparative DNA analysis evidence or the sufficiency of the safeguards preventing unwarranted disclosure of the results of his DNA testing, either at the hearing or in his motion to suppress. …  [T]he method and procedures employed in taking the saliva undoubtedly respected relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness, and defendant’s claim that the failure to provide him discovery of the extant probable cause and an adversarial hearing nonetheless warrants the invocation of the exclusionary rule is without constitutional basis.

[With respect to the video,] …defendant did not dispute that he was the individual who appeared in the video reciting certain words [and] the video contains distinctive identifying characteristics … . … [T]estimony … provided evidence pertinent to the timing of the making of the video—including defendant’s admission of his future intent to make the video the next morning … —and the video was uploaded to YouTube close in time to the homicide. … [T]he video was introduced for its relevance to defendant’s motive related to territorial gang activity—which is not an element of the offense—rather than specifically offered for its truth. People v Goldman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05977, Ct App 10-22-20

 

 

, ,

IN A VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE, THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM MARIJUANA IS THE SAME AS THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM ALCOHOL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Lynch, affirmed defendant’s conviction stemming from a collision with a motorcycle at a time when defendant was impaired by marijuana (THC). The decision, which lays out the law of vehicular manslaughter, carefully goes through evidence of impairment and causation. The opinion is too detailed to be fairly summarized here. It is worth noting that, on the issue of impairment, the opinion indicates a prior decision describing a different standard of proof of impairment for marijuana, as opposed to alcohol, should no longer be followed. The same standard of proof of impairment is applied to the drugs enumerated in Public Health Law 3306, including marijuana, as is applied to alcohol:

… [T]he degree of impairment necessary to convict a motorist of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree based upon a death that was caused while such motorist was under the influence of one of the drugs enumerated in Public Health Law § 3306 (which includes marihuana) is the same degree of impairment as would be necessary to sustain a conviction of driving while intoxicated by alcohol — namely, the People must prove that such motorist was “incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he [or she was] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … . To the extent that this Court’s decision in People v Rossi (163 AD2d 660, 662 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 943 [1990]) can be read as holding that a conviction of vehicular manslaughter in second degree based upon a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4) only requires proof that the motorist was impaired “to any extent,” it should no longer be followed. People v Caden N., 2020 NY Slip Op 05979, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE JULY 2015 MENTAL HYGIENE ARTICLE 10 TRIAL; COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT REQUESTING A FRYE HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OSPD DIAGNOSIS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A FRYE HEARING BASED UPON WHAT WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF THE 2015 TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, remitting the matter for a Frye hearing, determined respondent was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in the July 2015 Mental Hygiene Article 10 trial because counsel did not request a Frye hearing on the validity of the “other specific paraphilic disorder (nonconsent)” (OSPD) diagnosis. It was not until just after the July 2015 trial that courts recognized it was an abuse of discretion to deny a Frye hearing regarding OSPD, but there was a substantial amount of literature calling the diagnosis into question at the time of the trial:

When evaluating whether counsel’s failure to request a pretrial Frye hearing in this case constituted ineffective assistance, counsel’s posttrial motion practice sheds light on what counsel knew, or should have known, prior to trial about the acceptance of paraphilic disorders. Counsel filed a posttrial motion, apparently at respondent’s urging, to preclude from the dispositional hearing evidence of OSPD (nonconsent) and other paraphilic disorders by any name. In his motion papers, counsel not only cited to several of the foregoing trial court cases that had been recently issued, but also annexed several scientific articles from 2014, 2011 and 2008 that highlight the controversial nature and forensic misuse of paraphilic disorders generally or outright reject PNOS (nonconsent) or OSPD (nonconsent) as diagnoses reliable enough for the courtroom. At least one of these articles, as well as counsel’s cross-examination of [an expert] at trial, reveal that counsel was at least generally aware that defined nonconsent paraphilias or paraphilic disorders had been rejected for inclusion in various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … . * * *

… [H]ad counsel been successful at a pretrial Frye hearing in precluding consideration of OSPD (nonconsent), it is possible that respondent could have had the petition dismissed before trial … . … In other words, counsel “had everything to gain and nothing to lose” by challenging OSPD (nonconsent) in a Frye hearing … . … [T]his single failing deprived respondent of the effective assistance of counsel … . Accordingly, we hold the appeal … in abeyance and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a posttrial Frye hearing to consider the reliability of OSPD (nonconsent) based on the information that was available prior to the July 2015 trial, and to report back on its findings … . Matter of State of New York v Kenneth II, 2020 NY Slip Op 05980, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A LINCOLN HEARING WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION PERTINENT TO FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, remitted the matter to determine whether a change in circumstance warranted a modification of the child custody order. The order did not address where the child should attend school after eighth grade and father sought an modified order allowing the child to attend a public high school and expanding his parenting time. Family Court refused to use information learned in a Lincoln hearing in connection with the father’s burden to show a change in circumstances. The Third Department remitted the matter noting that a Lincoln hearing, under the circumstances, would provide the court with pertinent information:

… [T]he father established a change in circumstances requiring a thorough best interests analysis. To that end, it is undisputed that there is no current order governing where the child is to attend school. Also, the father’s uncontested testimony established that the father and the mother cannot reach an agreement as to where the child should attend school, thus requiring judicial intervention … . …

Family Court erred in denying the father’s motion requesting a Lincoln hearing to aid in the court’s determination of whether a change in circumstances had occurred. “Although a child’s wishes can support the finding of a change in circumstances, they are but one factor and are not determinative” … . Although “[t]he decision whether to conduct such a hearing is discretionary, . . . it is ‘often the preferable course’ to conduct one” … . Here, given that the child was 14 years old at the time of the fact-finding hearing and had expressed a preference to attend public school, that this preference was one of the changed circumstances alleged by the father and that the attorney for the child joined in the father’s request for the Lincoln hearing, a Lincoln hearing “would have provided the court with significant pieces of information it needed to make the soundest possible decision” … . Matter of Edwin Z. v Courtney AA., 2020 NY Slip Op 05987, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

FATHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS ON THE GROUND HIS 18-YEAR-OLD CHILD HAD ABANDONED HIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father was not entitled to summary judgment on his petition to terminate his parental rights on the ground that the 18-year-old had abandoned him:

… [T]he father did not establish his entitlement, as a matter of law, to termination of his child support obligation on the ground of abandonment. Although the father’s submissions detailed his efforts to establish a relationship with the child and the child’s repeated rebuffs of those efforts, the father’s proof failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the child’s refusal to have contact with him was totally unjustified, particularly given the father’s prolonged absence from the child’s life and the child’s developmental disability and other diagnoses. Such factual issues warranted a full evidentiary hearing and should not have been summarily resolved by Family Court … . Although Family Court had knowledge of prior proceedings between the parties, the justification issue had never been squarely before Family Court and required the presentation of evidence, including potential expert testimony, concerning the impact of the child’s developmental disability and other diagnoses on the child’s refusal to have contact with the father. Matter of Thomas GG. v Bonnie Jean HH., 2020 NY Slip Op 05988, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

NEITHER THE “HABIT” NOR THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the “habit” jury instruction should not have been given; (2) the “error in judgment” jury instruction should not have been given; and (3) plaintiff’s expert cardiologist should have been allowed to testify about the appropriateness of taking plaintiff off the anti-coagulant medication, DAPT. Plaintiff had a heart attack in 2012 and was put on DAPT permanently by his cardiologist to prevent blood clots. In 2014 defendant cardiologist agreed to the defendant gastroenterologist’s request to have plaintiff stop taking DAPT temporarily to allow a colonoscopy procedure. While plaintiff was off the DAPT he had another heart attack:

… [T]he very conduct that is the subject of the [habit] charge in question is the “course of treatment regarding patients they held in common.” In order for a habit charge to be appropriate, the proof must demonstrate “‘a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances'” … . “On no view . . . can conduct involving not only oneself but particularly other persons . . . produce a regular usage because of the likely variation of the circumstances in which such conduct will be indulged” … . Here, neither defendant had complete control, and both defendants testified that their decisions regarding temporary cessation of DAPT prior to or after a colonoscopy varied depending on the circumstances of each patient. …

An error in judgment charge “is appropriate only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that [the] defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … . “A distinction must therefore be made between an ‘error in judgment’ and a doctor’s failure to exercise his or her best judgment. Giving the ‘error in judgment’ charge without regard for this distinction would otherwise relieve doctors whose conduct would constitute a breach of duty from liability” … . Here, the primary issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from the standard of care in determining to temporarily cease [plaintiff’s] DAPT both before and after his colonoscopy. There was no evidence presented that defendants chose between two or more medically accepted alternatives … . …

Plaintiffs’ cardiology expert established that he had knowledge and expertise in this area and should not have been barred from testifying as to whether [the gatroenterologist’s] decision to temporarily cease DAPT for 14 days after the colonoscopy was a departure from the standard of care … . Michalko v Deluccia, 2020 NY Slip Op 05991, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT RETAILER’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO FIX A MALFUNCTIONING CROSSBOW AND RETURNED IT TO PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE RETAILER’S RETURN POLICY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS THEREAFTER INJURED BY THE CROSSBOW; THE RETAILER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the defendant retailer which sold an allegedly defective crossbow to plaintiff should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged when he returned the malfunctioning crossbow to the retailer an employee attempted to fix it and gave it back to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was thereafter injured by the crossbow:

… [E]ven accepting that defendant had no duty to warn plaintiffs of the alleged defect in the crossbow, it was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Plaintiffs gave deposition testimony in which they explained that they were injured by the crossbow in separate incidents and that, when plaintiff James Garrison returned the crossbow to defendant’s store after the first incident, one of defendant’s employees attempted to repair it and gave it back to Garrison. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties and accepting their account of events as true … , a duty of care arose when the employee chose to undertake the crossbow repair … , and the fact that the repair violated defendant’s return policy for defective or damaged items constituted some evidence of negligence … . Defendant produced no evidence that conclusively demonstrated plaintiffs’ accounts to be untrue or showed the employee’s actions to have played no role in the second crossbow malfunction. Garrison v Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05996, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of defendant’s default was hearsay:

For evidence of default, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of a foreclosure manager employed by the plaintiff, wherein she attested, among other things, that the defendant defaulted under the loan in February 2011. By attesting that she was familiar with the record-making practices of her employer, that the records were made in the regular course of business, that it was the regular course of such business to make the record, and that the records were made “at or about the time of the event being recorded” … , the foreclosure manager satisfied the requirements for establishing a foundation for the admission of business records (see CPLR 4518[a] …). However, since the foreclosure manager failed to submit any of the business records upon which she contends she relied in making her affidavit, her averment as to the defendant’s purported default “‘constitute[s] inadmissible hearsay and lack[s] probative value'” … . As “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, [*2]that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … , and “a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … , the assertions by the foreclosure manager as to the contents of the records were “inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purport[ed] to describe were not submitted with her affidavit” … . Selene Fin., L.P. v Coleman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, ,

THE MANSLAUGHTER AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS STEMMING FROM A FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the manslaughter and criminally negligence homicide convictions stemming from a traffic accident, determined the evidence was legally insufficient. There was evidence provided by another driver (Duke) that defendant was driving above the speed limit before the collision (which Duke did not witness), but nothing else. Two passengers and an unborn child died in the collision:

… [T]he evidence was legally insufficient to establish “the kind of seriously condemnatory behavior” in addition to speeding that is necessary to “transform ‘speeding’ into ‘dangerous speeding'” … . While Duke testified that the defendant’s vehicle “swerv[ed] around” her into the left lane to pass, she did not testify that the defendant’s vehicle came close to hitting her vehicle, that she had to engage in any evasive measures to avoid an accident, that there were any vehicles in the left lane when the defendant moved into it, or that the defendant swerved back in front of her after passing her … . Rather, Duke testified that after the defendant moved into the left lane, she waited for him to pass before getting into the left lane behind him. Moreover, Duke testified that the defendant was driving at a slower rate while moving into the left lane to pass her before speeding up after he moved into the left lane, and that the defendant obeyed a red traffic signal, pausing and not again accelerating until the traffic signal “turned green.” Duke also stated that there were “no more lights” between that traffic signal and the location of the accident, and thus, there is no indication that the defendant disregarded any red traffic signals. Further, the People presented no evidence that the defendant proceeded in disregard of a warning to slow down or of a dangerous driving condition … . Evidence was presented that Kent Avenue, which is partly situated in an industrial area, is not a busy road and generally has “very few cars” on it around the time when the accident occurred. Thus, the People failed to establish that the defendant engaged in “some additional affirmative act aside from driving faster than the posted speed limit,” as required to support a finding of recklessness or criminal negligence … . People v Acevedo, 2020 NY Slip Op 05909, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, ,

DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF HER FINANCIAL SITUATION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; MOTHER WAS FACING INCARCERATION FOR VIOLATING HER CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS; NEW CONFIRMATION OF WILLFULNESS HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny mother’s request to present evidence of her financial situation and her request for an adjournment to obtain additional proof of her financial situation in this child support proceeding. Mother was facing incarceration for violation of her support obligations:

… [A]lthough the mother appeared in person before the Family Court at the confirmation of willfulness hearing, and proffered documentary and testimonial evidence in support of her assertion that she was indigent and unable to pay child support, the court did not permit the mother to adduce any evidence regarding her financial situation, and denied her request for an adjournment to obtain additional evidence of her inability to work. This was an abuse of discretion … . Since the mother was facing a potential period of incarceration of up to six months in the event that the court determined that her failure to pay child support was willful (see Family Ct Act § 454[3][a]), the mother’s testimony was “essential to the court’s determination as to whether she had had the ability to pay or willfully disobeyed the prior support order” … . If the mother had been given an opportunity to substantiate her claimed inability to pay, and she had done so, the court would have been constrained to deny the father’s petition … . Matter of Palombelli v Guglielmo, 2020 NY Slip Op 05903, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

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