You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance ground should not have been denied without a hearing:

… [D]efendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was supported by a notarized but unsworn statement of a witness, dated prior to defendant’s trial, who asserted that defendant had borrowed the witness’s jacket minutes before defendant’s arrest, that the controlled substances in the pockets of that jacket belonged to the witness, and that defendant had no prior knowledge of the controlled substances … . Defendant himself averred in an affidavit submitted in support of his motion that he informed trial counsel prior to trial of the witness’s willingness to testify. Defendant’s motion therefore set forth sufficient facts tending to substantiate his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and we therefore agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying that claim without a hearing … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in rejecting his contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to either secure police surveillance of the traffic stop that led to defendant’s arrest or seek sanctions for the prosecution’s alleged failure to preserve the same. People v Fox, 2020 NY Slip Op 01809, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant submitted an affidavit from an alibi witness claiming that defendant was out-of-state at the time of the offense and further stating that she had so informed defense counsel. In denying the motion to vacate, Supreme Court noted that defendant did not submit an affidavit from defense counsel. The Fourth Department recognized  that obtaining such an affidavit is problematic where ineffective assistance is alleged:

“It is well established that the failure to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses may amount to ineffective assistance of counsel’ ” … . Contrary to the court’s determination, a “defendant’s failure to submit an affidavit from trial counsel is not fatal to [a CPL 440.10] motion” … . Where, as here, the defendant’s ” application is adverse and hostile to his [or her] trial attorney,’ it is wasteful and unnecessary’ to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his [or her] failure to do so” … . Moreover, to be entitled to a hearing, a defendant is not required to submit with his or her motion evidence corroborating the alibi witness’s affidavit … . Although the lack of corroboration is a factor the court may consider at a hearing, it is not a basis for denying the motion summarily. People v Scott, 2020 NY Slip Op 01807, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time defendant was asked about the contents of a bag he was carrying. The defendant answered “weed,” was frisked, and a firearm was seized. The evidence should have been suppressed:

The evidence at the suppression hearing establishes that the arresting officer was on routine patrol in what he described as a high-crime area known to be an “open air drug market,” where there had also been numerous burglaries and robberies. That officer had been a member of the police force for only a few months, and he was under the supervision of a training officer. The arresting officer testified that he observed defendant walking on a sidewalk shortly after midnight on a chilly night, with temperatures near 40 degrees, and that defendant was wearing a mask that covered the lower part of his face. The officer had not received any reports of recent crimes in the area, was not responding to any call, and did not observe defendant engage in any illegal activity. The officer pulled his patrol vehicle in front of defendant’s path of travel, exited the patrol vehicle along with the training officer, approached defendant, and asked defendant why he was wearing a mask. Defendant replied that he was walking his dog, and the unchallenged evidence at the hearing establishes that he was indeed walking a dog. * * *

Based on the evidence at the suppression hearing, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that the training officer had the requisite founded suspicion … . Thus, we conclude that the training officer’s inquiry and the subsequent frisk of defendant by the arresting officer was not a proper escalation of the level one encounter. …

We further conclude that the frisk of defendant and seizure of the gun was not justified “as having been in the interests of the officer[‘s] safety, since there was no testimony that the [arresting] officer[ ] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon . . . , and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the [arresting] officer had reason to fear for his safety” … . People v Wallace, 2020 NY Slip Op 01796, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHED AT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARRAIGNMENT; SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING BY PENNSYLVANIA POLICE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW YORK POLICE DID NOT MAKE A REASONABLE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, affirming the suppression of statements made by defendant, determined defendant had requested counsel at his arraignment in Pennsylvania and therefore subsequent questioning by Pennsylvania police about New York (Jamestown) offenses in the absence of counsel violated his right to counsel:

On March 28, 2017, defendant participated in a preliminary arraignment in Pennsylvania … , and the record supports the finding of County Court that defendant requested counsel during that proceeding. On April 4, 2017, members of the Jamestown Police Department traveled to Pennsylvania to interview defendant about the Jamestown arsons. Although the Jamestown police officers ultimately did not interview defendant themselves, they observed while Pennsylvania State Troopers interrogated defendant, in the absence of defense counsel, about the offenses allegedly committed in Pennsylvania. During that interrogation, the Pennsylvania State Troopers also questioned defendant about the New York offenses, and defendant made inculpatory statements about the Jamestown fires. * * *

…[E]even though the interview was carried out by Pennsylvania State Troopers, their interrogation is nevertheless subject to this state’s right to counsel jurisprudence inasmuch as they were agents of the Jamestown police officers … . ,,,

The Court of Appeals has held that “an officer who wishes to question a person in police custody about an unrelated matter must make a reasonable inquiry concerning the defendant’s representational status when the circumstances indicate that there is a probable likelihood that an attorney has entered the custodial matter, and the accused is actually represented on the custodial charge” … . Here, although the [Jamestown] captain asked whether defendant was represented by counsel, based on this record, we conclude that the captain’s inquiry was not reasonable inasmuch as he failed to ask whether defendant had requested counsel. People v Young, 2020 NY Slip Op 01825, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ALONE IN HIS CAR ARGUING WITH SOMEONE ON HIS PHONE WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR THE APPROACH; THE HANDGUN FOUND IN AN INVENTORY SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police officers did not have an objective credible reason for approaching defendant, who was in his car outside a nightclub just after the club closed. The defendant was arrested after a check on his license revealed it had been suspended. The handgun found in an inventory search of the car should have been suppressed:

… [D]efendant’s engagement in an argument on his cell phone while alone in his private vehicle — did not provide any apparent nexus to the drug and weapons crimes that police said were typically committed in the area, or give rise to any other objective reason to question his presence. Nothing about a driver’s conduct in arguing on a cell phone, without more, suggests criminal activity related to weapons or drugs … . A sole occupant of a private vehicle arguing with someone who is not present gives rise to no apparent reason for police to intervene, such as potential safety concerns … .

Thus, we find that police did not have the requisite objective, credible reason for approaching defendant’s vehicle in the first instance. The encounter was further invalid because police had no objective, credible reason to extend the initial conversation by running defendant’s driver’s license after he responded to their initial inquiry and provided the information they requested … . The officer gave no explanation for his decision to intrude further at that point, nor does the record reveal such an explanation. Nothing about the exchange with defendant gave rise to any reason to suspect that he was not telling the truth … . Defendant’s driver’s license did not appear to belong to someone else … or reveal anything unusual on its face … . Lacking an objective, credible reason that justified police in approaching defendant’s vehicle and making inquiries, the encounter was invalid at its inception … . People v Stover, 020 NY Slip Op 01676, Third Dept 3-12-20

 

,

SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS RE FIRST DEGREE MURDER; CROSS EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER RE EXCESSIVE FORCE PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the second degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the convictions of first degree murder. The court noted that the trial court properly precluded cross examination of a police officer about allegations of the officer’s use of excessive force because the allegations were not relevant to credibility:

While specific and relevant allegations of misconduct in a civil action filed against a law enforcement officer may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching that law enforcement witness at trial … , such impeachment is subject to the court’s broad discretion in controlling the permissible scope of cross-examination … . Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that specific allegations of excessive force in a federal action pending against the detective and a finding in 2010 by the Civilian Complaint Review Board that the detective used excessive force were relevant to the detective’s credibility … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01632, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a decision by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Supreme Court, vacated a protective order concerning the disclosure of certain evidence to the defense:

I agree with the defendant that the People should have been required to disclose to defense counsel the general nature of the information that the People sought to be protected (see CPL 245.10[1][a] [“Portions of materials claimed to be non-discoverable may be withheld pending a determination and ruling of the court under 245.70 of this article; but the defendant shall be notified in writing that information has not been disclosed under a particular subdivision of (CPL 245.20)”]).

The defendant and his counsel were not informed as to whether what was sought to be protected were only witness names and personal information as opposed to witness statements, police reports, grand jury testimony, video or audio recordings, or other evidence.

I also agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People should have been required to disclose information about the reasons for the application that would not reveal the existence of the information sought to be protected. As I stated in People v Bonifacio (179 AD3d 977, 979), “proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party” and that it may be that “even where some aspects of the application should be considered by the court ex parte, other portions of the application may be appropriately disclosable.” Here, much of the written application could have been disclosed to defense counsel in redacted form without any danger of revealing the information sought to be protected … . People v Belfon, 2020 NY Slip Op 01630, Second Dept 3-11-20

,

THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s findings in this foreclosure action were based upon inadmissible hearsay:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of its document execution specialist, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records he purportedly relied upon in making his calculations … . Under the circumstances, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cavallaro, 2020 NY Slip Op 01624, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

A REVOLVER WHICH COULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE SHOOTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the admission into evidence of a revolver which could not be connected to the shooting at issue was (harmless) error:

Defendant next argues that County Court erred in admitting into evidence an operable .38-caliber revolver, containing five spent rounds, that was recovered from a nearby rooftop a few days after the shooting. Testing could not conclusively show that the revolver was used in the shooting or that it had been handled by defendant, but it remained relevant given the circumstances of its recovery and the fact that it could not be ruled out as the one used by the shooter … . The revolver was accordingly admissible unless its probative value was “substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice the other side or mislead the jury,” and County Court attempted to reduce that danger by telling the jury why the revolver was being admitted into evidence and urging it to give the revolver whatever weight it deemed appropriate … . County Court’s ameliorative efforts arguably fell short but, in our view, any resulting error was harmless “in light of the overwhelming testimony identifying defendant as [the] assailant” … . People v Banks, 2020 NY Slip Op 01525, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE REMOTELY OPERATED CRANE COULD FEASIBLY BE MADE SAFER; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact in this products liability case. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a crane operated remotely by plaintiff’s decedent. Defendants’ experts attributed the accident to plaintiff’s decedent’s acts of leaning into the path of the crane and bending over with the remote attached to his hip, causing the crane to be activated inadvertently. Both leaning into the path of the crane and bending over with the remote attached were known to be dangerous and plaintiff’s decedent had trained others accordingly. Although plaintiff’s expert averred that a dead man’s switch would have prevented the accident, he did not present any supporting evidence:

“An expert’s [Darby’s] affidavit — offered as the only evidence to defeat summary judgment — must contain sufficient allegations to demonstrate that the conclusions it contains are more than mere speculation, and would, if offered alone at trial, support a verdict in the proponent’s favor” … . Initially, although Derby alleged that he inspected the remote, his affidavit was not supported by facts of his own independent testing of the device; rather, he relied on deposition testimony of other witnesses to explain the functions of the remote … . Furthermore, although Derby averred that the remote could be made safer by adding a dead man’s switch or by implementing joysticks, he offered no proposed designs that could feasibly be installed … , and, moreover, he pointed to no industry standards or data to support his conclusion that the absence of a dead man’s switch rendered the remote unsafe … . After all, “[a] factual issue regarding design defect is not established merely by pointing to efforts within the industry to make a safer product, without providing some detail as to how the current product is not reasonably safe and how a feasible alternative would be safer” … . Given Derby’s failure to elaborate, and mindful of the testimony of multiple witnesses for defendants who averred that they were not aware of any remote controls in the industry that use a dead man’s switch for crane operations, plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to raise a triable issue regarding design defect … . Darrow v Hetronic Deutschland GMBH, 2020 NY Slip Op 01543, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

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