You are here: / Evidence
,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE SOONER, FOR SPEEDY TRIAL PURPOSES THE PEOPLE CAN BE CHARGED ONLY WITH THE TIME NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENTIARY ISSUE; THE NEED FOR MORE INVESTIGATION DID NOT INVALIDATE THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENT OF READINESS WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN; THEREFORE THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds. The People withdrew their statement of readiness stating that there was newly discovered evidence. Supreme Court found that the evidence was available early on and should have been discovered had the People been diligent.

The record shows that the People were not aware until April 30, 2019 that mistakes by police detectives had incorrectly led them to conclude that they could not locate the user of the Instagram account that had been used to send the photographs of defendant engaging in sexual acts with the victim to defendant’s ex-girlfriend. While we agree with the court that the People’s late realization was entirely due to the People’s failure to properly inspect the evidence within their possession, the time chargeable to the People is only the delay that is directly attributable to their inaction, and that which directly implicated their ability to proceed to trial … . Thus, the delay that is chargeable to the People due to their inaction with respect to the photographs is any additional time that they required to investigate the matter, which they could have previously investigated. Moreover, the People’s need to further investigate the photographs did not render their prior statement of readiness illusory because the record shows that, at the time they announced their readiness, the People would have been able to establish a prima facie case and proceed at trial … . People v Pratt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04662, fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert in this medical malpractice action did not address several of the allegations of defendant’s negligence. Therefore the unaddressed claims were deemed abandoned:

The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert anesthesiologist addressed defendant’s conduct only with respect to the claims arising from defendant’s alleged failure to ensure that the transport of Pasek [plaintiff] to the operating room was performed safely and his alleged failure to document the disconnection event and resulting blood loss in Pasek’s medical chart. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert failed to address the claims against defendant regarding the diagnosis, consulting, testing, examination, and pre- and post-operative treatment and did not identify any deviation with respect to defendant’s efforts to ventilate, monitor, or resuscitate Pasek, those claims are deemed abandoned. Supreme Court thus erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to those claims … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04652, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault third conviction, determined the evidence of “physical injury” was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Although the question of whether physical injury has been established is generally for the jury to decide, “there is an objective level . . . below which the question is one of law” … . Here, the complainant testified that the defendant pushed him to the ground, and slapped him several times in the face. The complainant testified that he cried because he “was in a lot of pain.” There was no evidence, however, corroborating the complainant’s subjective description of the degree of pain he experienced … . There was no testimony about the duration of the pain, whether the shove or slaps left any visible bruising, swelling, or redness, or whether the defendant sought medical treatment or missed any time from work or school … . Under these circumstances, there was legally insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain as a result of being pushed to the ground and slapped several times in the face … . People v Jhagroo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

,

RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming defendant’s murder conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined Molineux the ruling that defendant could be cross-examined about his three prior gun-related convictions if he were to testify the shooting was an accident did not deprive defendant of the right to put on a defense. The dissenter argued that it did:

Prior to trial, the Supreme Court ruled that if the defendant were to testify that the shooting was an accident, the People would be permitted to offer evidence, through their cross-examination of him, of the facts underlying his three prior gun-related convictions … . The defendant contends that this ruling deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial as it deterred him from testifying at trial. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, and the position of our dissenting colleagues, the court’s Molineux ruling did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial … . Moreover, any error in the ruling was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no reasonable possibility that any error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction … . * * *

From the dissent:

… [T]he fact that the defendant committed gun-related offenses against persons other than the victim nearly 20 years before the subject shooting bears no relevance whatsoever to the issue of whether the subject shooting was an accident. In my view, permitting the People to elicit the underlying facts of prior gun-related acts that were totally unrelated to the victim would serve only to demonstrate that the defendant had a propensity for gun violence … . Consequently, the Supreme Court’s pretrial ruling in this case cannot be justified under Molineux and, thus, the ruling effectively precluded the defendant from presenting a defense. People v Huertas, 2020 NY Slip Op 04577, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this foreclosure action because compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated:

RPAPL 1304 provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in the statute, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. The statute provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to 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” … . Here, although the plaintiff provided a photocopy of a “US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail” with a 20-digit number along with the purported 90-day notice, the receipt is undated and does not demonstrate that the notice was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. The plaintiff also failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the notice was sent by first-class mail. M&T Bank v Barter, 2020 NY Slip Op 04548, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no need for the defendants to give prior notification to the plaintiff of the defendants’ intent to call one of plaintiff’s treating doctors to testify about the cause of plaintiff’s cognitive deficits in this traffic accident case. The doctor would have testified the deficits were caused by a prior stroke. The testimony was precluded by Supreme Court because no “expert witness” notice had been provided to the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3101(d). The plaintiff was awarded $2,000,000 but the Second Department held the verdict should have been set aside:

A treating physician is permitted to testify at trial regarding causation, notwithstanding the failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1) … .”Indeed, a plaintiff’s treating physician could testify to the cause of the injuries even if he or she had expressed no opinion regarding causation in his or her previously exchanged medical report'”… . Here, the Supreme Court should not have precluded the plaintiff’s treating physician from testifying regarding causation based on the defendants’ failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1), as that provision does not apply to treating physicians … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the error in precluding this testimony cannot be deemed harmless.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on that issue. Duman v Scharf, 2020 NY Slip Op 04537, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. There was a question of fact whether plaintiff complied with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303, and plaintiff did not establish it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [D]efendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the RPAPL 1303 notice was in the proper form, as he asserted in his affidavit that the notice with which he was served “was on white colored paper, the same color papers as the summons and complaint and the heading entitled Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure’ was smaller than twenty-point type” … .

… [T]he affidavit of Lorene Alford Marsh, an Assistant Vice President of the plaintiff, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. Although Marsh attested that the 90-day notices of default were sent to the defendant by certified mail and first-class mail on March 8, 2013, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailings actually occurred … . Nor did Marsh attest that she had personal knowledge of the mailing practices of her employer at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly were sent. Instead, she merely stated that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s procedures for creating and maintaining notices mailed in connection with the loan. Moreover, rather than establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, Marsh, in her affidavit, merely described the mailing requirements listed in the statute … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Lauro, 2020 NY Slip Op 04531, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

,

THE STRIP SEARCH OF DEFENDANT WAS JUSTIFIED AND CONDUCTED PROPERLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the strip search of defendant, which resulted in the seizure of cocaine, was proper:

“[I]t is clear that a strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner” … . The trooper testified at the suppression hearing that the search of the vehicle led to the discovery of 1.1 grams of marihuana in the center console. A K-9 search of the vehicle revealed “hits” at both the center console and the driver’s seat. According to the trooper, during the transport of defendant to the State Police barracks, the smell of marihuana was “overwhelming.” At the barracks, defendant was handcuffed to a bench and the trooper continued to smell marihuana. Each time the trooper asked defendant if he had marihuana on him, he denied it. After defendant was advised that he was to be strip-searched, he was taken to a private interview room and the search was conducted by two male officers. Defendant was asked to remove one article of clothing at a time; when he was down to his underwear, defendant handed over the marihuana, and the cocaine was revealed shortly thereafter. Given this evidence, a reasonable suspicion existed that defendant was concealing evidence and we find that the search was conducted in a reasonable manner … . People v Hightower, 2020 NY Slip Op 04513, Third Dept 8-13-20

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT RESOLVED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY ISSUES WITHOUT A HEARING, FAILED TO ACCEPT ALLEGATIONS IN A PRO SE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION AS TRUE, IMPOSED A SANCTION FOR A VIOLATION OF A CUSTODY ORDER WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES, AND FAILED TO TAKE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN INTO ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, noted several errors in these proceedings which began with father’s violation of custody petitioner followed by two modification of custody petitions by mother. All the petitions were brought pro se. Family Court erred: (1) in dismissing mother’s modification petitions without a hearing; (2) in failing to accept as true and liberally construe mother’s pro se allegations; (3) in making factual findings and credibility determinations in the absence of a hearing on the modification petitions; (4) and in imposing an impermissible sanction on mother for an alleged violation of a custody order:

Family Court did not liberally construe the mother’s pro se petitions, accept her allegations as true, afford her the benefit of every possible inference or resolve credibility issues in her favor when determining the motions to dismiss. …

… [R]ather than accept the mother’s allegations as true, Family Court improperly made factual findings and credibility determinations, inappropriately resolving the conflicting versions of events, as set forth in the mother’s petitions and the father’s supporting affidavits, against the mother and in favor of the father … . …

… [T]he only available penalty that Family Court may impose for a willful violation of a custodial order without a concurrent modification petition pending is a monetary fine and/or a period of imprisonment (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; Family Ct Act § 156 …). However, Family Court sanctioned the mother by modifying the joint legal order of custody and granting the father sole legal custody of the children without determining whether there had been a change in circumstances. In addition, Family Court failed to engage in any discernible analysis of whether a modification was in the best interests of the children. Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 2020 NY Slip Op 04515, Third Dept 8-13-20

 

, , , ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT RE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA; THE PRECISE NATURE OF COUNSEL’S ADVICE WAS NOT IN THE RECORD; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the record was insufficient to preserve the ineffective assistance of counsel argument. The defendant argued that he was insufficiently informed about the deportation-risk associated with his guilty plea. The majority held that the record did not reflect the precise advice given by counsel and therefore the appropriate mechanism for review is a CPL 440.10 motion. The dissenters argued the record was sufficient to send the matter back for a motion to vacate the plea:

We do not agree with defendant’s attempt to exempt himself from the necessity of making a CPL 440.10 motion based on his counsel’s statements at the plea hearing concerning the off-the-record advice concerning immigration that had been rendered. To reiterate, counsel’s statements to the court, on their face, are general in nature and do not purport to describe the contents of the immigration advice that defendant actually received. The statement that defendant had been advised of “all possible consequences” was consistent both with accurate advice that the plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and with inaccurate advice that failed to warn him of that consequence. We cannot, on this record, tell whether the advice actually given was accurate or inaccurate. Certainly, it cannot be said that counsel’s statement establishes “irrefutably” … that the advice given was inaccurate, as is required to render a CPL 440.10 motion unnecessary. People v Gomez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04518, First Dept 8-13-20

 

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