You are here: / Evidence
,

THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED SHOOTING; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR FOR THAT EVIDENCE; THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TREAT THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES AS HOSTILE WITNESSES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of attempted murder and ordering a new trial, determined evidence of a prior uncharged shooting should not have been admitted and the prosecutor should not have been allowed to cross-examine the People’s witnesses as hostile witnesses:

County Court erred by permitting the prosecutor to present evidence of a prior uncharged shooting under the theory that defense counsel opened the door to such evidence … . …

… [T]he ‘opening the door’ theory does not provide an independent basis for introducing new evidence on redirect; nor does it afford a party the opportunity to place evidence before the jury that should have been brought out on direct examination” … . Instead that “principle merely allows a party to explain or clarify on redirect matters that have been put in issue for the first time on cross-examination, and the trial court should normally exclude all evidence which has not been made necessary by the opponent’s case in reply” … . * * *

The prosecutor … assumed the risk of the adverse testimony by “calling the witness[es] . . . in the face of the forewarning” [about what they would say]. … [A]t the time of the relevant questioning, the court had not granted the prosecutor permission to treat either witness as hostile … . … [T]he prosecutor improperly “use[d the] prior statement[s] for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the witness[es] in a manner that disclose[d their] contents to the trier of the facts” (CPL 60.35 [3]). People v Sylvester, 2020 NY Slip Op 06891, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

TOWN PROCEEDINGS ABOUT WHETHER THE TOWN WAS OBLIGATED TO PLOW THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS NOT A “QUASI-JUDICIAL” PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” THE STANDARD IS WHETHER THE DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the the town was obligated to plow the road leading to the petitioner’s property. The decision has a discussion of the evidentiary standards for review of an Article 78 proceeding:

With respect to this proceeding, … “the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply to the administrative decision at issue, since it was made after [an] informational public hearing[], as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing” … . “Evidentiary hearings that are constitutionally required and have some of the characteristics of adversary trials, including cross-examination, result in ‘quasi-judicial’ determinations that are subject to article 78 review in the nature of certiorari, where the ‘substantial evidence’ inquiry is applicable” (… see CPLR 7803 [4]). “In a mandamus to review proceeding, however, no quasi-judicial hearing is required; the petitioner need only be given an opportunity ‘to be heard’ and to submit whatever evidence he or she chooses and the agency [or body] may consider whatever evidence is at hand, whether obtained through a hearing or otherwise. The standard of review in such a proceeding is whether the agency [or body] determination was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law” … . Matter of Weikel v Town of W. Turin, 2020 NY Slip Op 06890, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s motion for summary judgment on his petition to terminate his child support obligations based on the children’s constructive emancipation was properly denied, and mother’s motion for summary judgment dismissing father’s petition should not have been granted. The basis for both rulings was the inadmissible evidence submitted by father and mother:

… [W]e conclude that the father did not meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing that their refusal to visit with him was unjustified … . Inasmuch as the father’s own submissions suggest that the subject children did not want to visit him due to their purported knowledge of the sex abuse allegations, his submissions failed to eliminate all material issues of fact … . Indeed, the father failed to establish that his behavior “was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with [the subject] children” … . Thus, we conclude that the court properly denied his motion.

We also conclude that the court should not have granted that part of the mother’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition. The court erred in relying on the unsworn letters from the subject children’s psychologist because they were not in admissible form … . Without the letters from the children’s psychologist, we conclude that the mother failed to meet her initial burden on her motion of establishing that the children were justified in abandoning the father by refusing to attend visitation. Like the father, the mother did not submit any admissible evidence establishing the reasons for the children’s decision not to visit the father. We therefore modify the amended order accordingly. Matter of Timothy M.M. v Doreen R., 2020 NY Slip Op 06886, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, , ,

A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (ASPD); REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION TO THAT EFFECT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT ADJUDICATING HIM A SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CIVIL MANAGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury in this Mental Hygiene Law sex-offender civil-commitment trial should have been instructed that the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) diagnosis cannot, standing alone, support a finding defendant has a mental abnormality as defined in the Mental Hygiene Law. The fact that the Pattern Jury Instructions do not include an instruction on this issue is not a justification for failing to give the instruction:

Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 defines “Mental abnormality” as a “congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.” In Matter of State of New York v Donald DD (24 NY3d 174 [2014]), the Court of Appeals expressly held: “evidence that a respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder cannot be used to support a finding that he has a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), when it is not accompanied by any other diagnosis of mental abnormality” … . …

Where [as here] the jury is asked to parse through multiple psychological diagnoses, which include ASPD, the jury should be instructed that ASPD cannot be the sole basis for its finding that someone suffers from a mental abnormality. This is to ensure that the jury’s finding conforms to the applicable law. Absent such an instruction, the jury may mistakenly find mental abnormality based solely on ASPD without the requisite finding of an additional diagnosis of a condition or disorder that, combined with ASPD, may predispose one to commit a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v David S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 11-19-20

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED ON A COMPUTER-GENERATED “SIMILARITY HIT;” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE BASIS OF THE “SIMILARITY HIT” WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THIS PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing because they did not make a minimum showing of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Whether the People meet that burden has been deemed a question of law which the Court of Appeals can address. Whether a stop was justified by reasonable suspicion is usually a mixed law and fact question which the Court of Appeals can not review. Here the traffic stop was based on a so-called “similarity hit” generated by the Department of Motor Vehicles database. A “similarity hit” apparently indicates some possible connection between the registered owner of a vehicle and an outstanding warrant. But, at the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the basis for the “similarity hit;”

According to the officer, a “similarity hit” is generated “based on the name of the registered owner, the date of birth[,] and other aliases.” He testified that the system considers “certain parameters” when identifying “similarity hits,” but he did not know how the Department of Motor Vehicles set those parameters. Nor did he testify as to any specifics of this match.

… [T]he officer did not think that the driver was the subject of the “similarity hit” because the driver was female and the registered owner was male. As the officer stepped around the vehicle to look at the registration and inspection stickers, he spotted a handgun on the floor under the front passenger seat, in which defendant was sitting. After defendant was arrested, the officer checked the MDT [mobile data terminal] information and discovered that the person with the warrant did not, in fact, match the vehicle’s registered owner or anyone else in the vehicle. The officer did not testify as to the name, date of birth, or address of the registered owner, or provide the specific identifying facts of the person set forth in the arrest warrant. …

While information generated by running a license-plate number through a government database may provide police with reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle …, the information’s sufficiency to establish reasonable suspicion is not presumed … . Thus, when police stop a vehicle based solely on such information, and the defendant, as here, challenges its sufficiency, the People must present evidence of the content of the information … . People v Balkman, 2020 NY Slip Op 06838, CtApp 11-19-20

 

, ,

EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE OFFICER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE; THEREFORE THE STOP WAS VALID AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, over a concurring memorandum, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions, determined the police officer who stopped defendant reasonably believed the non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Therefore the stop was valid and the DWI evidence should not have been suppressed. The Vehicle and Traffic Law requires at least two functioning brake lights. Here there were two functioning lights but the center brake light was not working:

We conclude that the officer’s interpretation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was objectively reasonable. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (40) (b) mandates that motor vehicles manufactured after a certain date be “equipped with at least two stop lamps, one on each side, each of which shall display a red to amber light visible at least five hundred feet from the rear of the vehicle when the brake of such vehicle is applied.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 (1) (a) prohibits, in relevant part, (1) operating a vehicle “during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, unless such vehicle is equipped with lamps of a type approved by the commissioner which are lighted and in good working condition”; and (2) operating a vehicle at any time “unless such vehicle is equipped with signaling devices and reflectors of a type approved by the commissioner which are in good working condition.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (19), in turn, prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle on highways or streets if the vehicle “is defectively equipped and lighted.” Taken together, these provisions could reasonably be read to require that all lamps and signaling devices be in good working condition, and that all equipment and lighting be non-defective, regardless of whether a vehicle is actually required to be equipped with those lamps, signaling devices, equipment, or lights. Even assuming the officer was in fact mistaken on the law, it was nevertheless objectively reasonable to conclude that defendant’s non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Because any error of law by the officer was reasonable, there was probable cause justifying the stop … . People v Pena, 2020 NY Slip Op 06836, CtApp 11-19-20

 

,

PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was insufficient:

Notice must be sent both “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” (RPAPL 1304[2]). “‘[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “Proof of the requisite mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

… [The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from a witness who attested to having personal knowledge of either the actual mailing or “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the records submitted with the plaintiff’s motion did not establish as a matter of law that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. A copy of a letter and envelope addressed to the defendant, each bearing a 20-digit number, was insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the certified mailing actually occurred … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence substantiating the assertions that a second copy of the notice was mailed to the defendant by regular first-class mail, as required by the statute … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Feeney, 2020 NY Slip Op 06753, Second Dept 11-18-20

Similar issues and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Gold, 2020 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

THE CRACK OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the crack in the concrete schoolyard where infant plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell was trivial as a matter of law. Infant plaintiff was running a sprint in an after-school program when he fell. The court noted that plaintiffs raised a “feigned issue of fact” in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which tried to avoid the consequences of deposition testimony:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law and therefore nonactionable … . The defendants’ expert inspected the crack and determined that it was “from 1/8 of an inch to 7/16 of an inch in width,” and the pavement “on each side of the crack[ ] . . . contained no vertical height differential.” Further, the infant plaintiff’s General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and deposition testimony established that the accident occurred during daylight hours on a clear day with nothing obstructing his view.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the defect was trivial, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the infant plaintiff stating that “[t]he crack was wide enough that part of [his] right foot was able [to] go into it” “‘presented what appears to be a feigned issue of fact, designed to avoid the consequences of [his] earlier deposition testimony'” … that his right “heel” stepped “on” the crack, and his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony that his right “toes” “stopped really hard” on the crack and the crack “wasn’t wide.” Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert was speculative, unsubstantiated, and conclusory, as the expert neither provided a description of the crack nor took any measurements of it … . K.A. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06737, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KEPT RUNNING, RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed as untimely. The debt was accelerated with the first foreclosure action was commenced in 2008, starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The discontinuing of the that action did not revoke the acceleration:

“[A] lender’s mere act of discontinuing an action, without more, does not constitute, in and of itself, an affirmative act revoking an earlier acceleration of the debt” … .

None of the other facts relied upon by the plaintiff establish that the 2008 acceleration of the loan balance was affirmatively revoked. “[D]e-acceleration notices must . . . be clear and unambiguous to be valid and enforceable” … . While the plaintiff points to the fact that the defendant purportedly received billing statements after the first action was discontinued and that the second complaint alleged a different date of default, these facts do not establish that a clear and unambiguous notice of revocation of the acceleration was given to the defendant. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Islam, 2020 NY Slip Op 06823, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

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