You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE APPROPRIATE TEST FOR WHETHER THE POLICE HAD “REASONABLE SUSPICION” SUFFICIENT FOR A TRAFFIC STOP BASED ON AN ANONYMOUS TIP IS THE “TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES;” THE CRITERIA INCLUDE THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI RELIABILITY AND BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE FACTORS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, applied the “totality of the circumstances” test and determined the police had probable cause to stop defendant’s car based upon an anonymous tip. The anonymous 911 caller told the dispatcher he was calling from a specified intersection and he had just been shot by two Black males in a white Mercedes. The caller said he knew the perpetrators and gave the dispatcher the address of one of them. A police officer four blocks away in a patrol car spotted a White Mercedes 30 to 60 seconds after the dispatcher broadcasted the report and stopped it. After the officer confirmed the address on the driver’s license was the address provided by the 911 caller, the officer asked if there were anything in the car he should know about. After the driver said “no, you can check the car” the officer saw a handgun and smelled gun powder through a gap in the locked glove compartment:

We have continued to apply the principles of Aguilar-Spinelli in the probable cause context … after the United States Supreme Court abandoned it in favor of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach (see Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 233 [1983] …), in recognition that Aguilar-Spinelli is more protective of our citizens’ rights under the State Constitution … . At issue here … is whether that same analysis is required for the lesser intrusion of an investigatory stop requiring reasonable suspicion. * * *

… [W]e now hold that the appropriate test is whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. While this approach involves an analysis of the Aguilar-Spinelli reliability and basis of knowledge factors, “allowance must be made in applying them for the lesser showing required” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard .. . .

Here, the totality of the circumstances establishes that there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle. The anonymous informant used the 911 system to report that he had “just been shot,” necessarily claiming personal knowledge of the crime. The caller also provided a description of the alleged shooter, the make and color of the shooter’s vehicle, and his location. The police were able to corroborate that information, within one minute of receiving the dispatch and within a block from the reported location, when they observed a car and suspect matching the description provided. The contemporaneous nature of the report is substantial here and weighs in favor of the caller’s veracity.

The police were duty-bound to investigate the radio report of a shooting, and they could not ignore their own contemporaneous observation of a vehicle matching the caller’s description and location. … [O]ur review of the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct is limited to the information known to the police at the time of the vehicle stop. … [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding of reasonable suspicion. People v Leighton R., 2025 NY Slip Op 06534, CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the application of the “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether there was “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to justify a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip.

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s should have been precluded from introducing in evidence a surveillance video depicting plaintiff’s accident. Although the video had been explicitly demanded by plaintiff, defendants did not produce it until after plaintiff’s deposition, six months after the entry of the compliance order:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion seeking discovery sanctions. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendants acted willfully and contumaciously when they failed to turn over video footage of plaintiff’s accident … . Defendants failed to produce the video in response to repeated explicit demands and repeatedly denied the existence of any video of plaintiff’s accident. It was not until after plaintiff’s deposition on May 20, 2024 and during the June 27, 2024 deposition of defendants’ building manager that defendants revealed the existence of the video. While only six months elapsed from entry of the compliance order to the belated production of the video, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the late production. Defendants should be sanctioned for their dilatory behavior in producing the surveillance video after plaintiff’s deposition had already taken place … .

Given the totality of the circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the lesser sanction of preclusion … . Larue v 1201-31 Lafayette Ground Gowner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: Here there was an explicit demand for any video of plaintiff’s accident but defendants did not produce to video until after plaintiff’s deposition. Introduction of the video in evidence was precluded.

 

, , , ,

PETITIONERS, THE NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S PILOT PROGRAM WHICH WOULD ADD 2500 FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO THE CITY STREETS; PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THE ADDED VEHICLES WOULD REDUCE MEMBERS’ INCOME (INJURY-IN-FACT) IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance and two individual drivers, had standing to challenge a pilot program initiated by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission as violating a Local Law. The pilot program would put 2500 more for-hire vehicles (FHV’s} on the street. Petitioners argued standing based on evidence the pilot program will lower the income of the members of the Taxi Workers Alliance. Supreme Court had held the loss-of-income claim was speculative:

… [P]etitioners established both an injury in fact and that their alleged harm satisfies the zone of interest requirement, and they therefore have standing.

… [P]etitioners allege a concrete, particularized harm: a loss of income and a deterioration of driver well-being occasioned by the introduction or potential introduction of additional vehicles into the for-hire market. That harm is neither speculative nor conjunctural; rather, it is well-demonstrated by the legislative facts underpinning Local Law 147, which facts are based, in part, on industry data. Moreover, petitioners’ alleged harm is supported by the findings of the Committee on For-Hire Vehicles as expressed in their reports. The legislative materials evince a clear connection between the number of FHVs on the streets and driver income: when the number of FHVs increases without a corresponding increase in passenger demand, driver income decreases. * * *

… [P]etitioners demonstrated that the alleged harms of loss of income and deterioration of driver well-being fall within the zone of interests or concerns promoted or protected by Local Law 147. Two of the principal interests or concerns expressly promoted or protected by the law are driver income and driver well-being (see Administrative Code § 19-550[a]; 35 RCNY 59A-06[a][1]), and the significant legislative history of Local Law 147 confirms that the City Council was concerned with the human costs associated with the exceptional growth in the FHV market, particularly drivers’ ability to earn a living. Matter of New York Taxi Workers Alliance v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 06551, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: To have standing to challenge a local law, the challenger must demonstrate an injury-in-fact and the injury is within the scope of the protections afforded by the local law.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE “RESISTING ARREST;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s resisting-arrest conviction was against the weight of the evidence and dismissed the indictment. Defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest. His subsequent resistance, therefore, did not constitute resisting arrest:

As the People concede, defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence … . The undisputed evidence established that defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest, handcuffed, physically restrained, and surrounded by police officers … . Defendant’s subsequent physical resistance does not constitute resisting arrest, as he could not have intentionally “prevented or attempted to prevent a police officer from effecting an authorized arrest” by doing so (Penal Law § 205.30). People v Nesmith, 2025 NY Slip Op 06555, First Dept 11-25-24

Practice Point: Any resistance by a defendant which occurs after arrest does not constitute the crime of “resisting arrest.”

 

, , , ,

BECAUSE THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY A CHURCH WAS NOT BEING USED AS A RETREAT IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING LAWS AND THEREFORE IS TAX EXEMPT, THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONSTRAINED TO AFFIRM; THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined Supreme Court and the Appellate Division properly ruled that the property in Sullivan County purchased by a church in Queens was not being used in violation of the zoning laws and was tax-exempt. The factual question was whether the property was being used as a retreat for church members, which would violate the zoning laws, or whether the property was being used to grow vegetables, which would not violate the zoning law. The majority held it was constrained to affirm because there was support in the record for the factual findings made by Supreme Court:

These proceedings under the Real Property Tax Law present a factual dispute about how a church based in Flushing, Queens, actually used a property it purchased in the Town of Callicoon. Because the lower courts committed no legal error, and because we may not reweigh facts or redetermine issues of credibility, we affirm. * * *

Our role is not to substitute our judgment for that of the hearing court but rather to determine whether there is record support for the decision it reached. Here, the trial record supports Supreme Court’s finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that although petitioner may have purchased the property with the intention of using it as a “retreat,”[FN4] its actual use of the property was to clear approximately one acre of the parcel and, on that cleared area, grow vegetables for charitable distribution to low-income Queens residents. The only other trial evidence about actual use of the property was that the Town Supervisor, who lived across the street from the subject property, regularly harvested hay from the property and never saw any overnight use of the property for “retreat” purposes. Matter of First United Methodist Church in Flushing v Assessor, Town of Callicoon, 2025 NY Slip Op 06526. CtApp 11-24-25

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals is constrained to accept the lower courts’ factual findings if there is support for them in the record.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT MOVED TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP ON THE GROUND THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE STOP; THE POLICE CLAIMED THE REASON FOR THE STOP WAS DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO WEAR A SEATBELT; SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A SEARBELT WERE NOT PRESERVED; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for legal argument and, if defendant so requests, reopening of the suppression hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Surveillance videos which would have shown whether defendant was not wearing a seatbelt (the claimed probable cause for the stop) were not preserved. Defendant moved to suppress the weapon seized from the vehicle on the ground there was no probable cause for the traffic stop. Defense counsel was deemed ineffective for failing the request an adverse inference charge:

… [T]he single omission of failing to request that the court consider an adverse inference charge at the suppression hearing deprived defendant of meaningful representation … . Defense counsel’s error in failing to make that argument was sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to deprive defendant of his constitutional right to effective legal representation because the only evidence presented by the People at the hearing was testimony from one of the arresting officers, whose testimony was inconsistent at times, and an adverse inference charge could have successfully undermined the officer’s testimony on the issue of probable cause to stop defendant, i.e., whether defendant was, in fact, not wearing a seatbelt. Indeed, suppression of the gun that was seized as a result of defendant’s encounter with the police would have been dispositive of the sole count of the indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … . Under the circumstances of this case, defense counsel’s failure to request an adverse inference charge could not have been grounded in legitimate strategy … . We note that defendant’s contention survives his guilty plea inasmuch as he demonstrated that defense counsel’s error infected the plea bargaining process … .

We therefore conditionally modify the judgment by remitting the matter to Supreme Court “for further proceedings on the suppression application, to include legal argument by counsel for both parties and, if defendant so elects, reopening of the hearing” … . In the event that defendant prevails on the suppression application, the judgment is reversed, the plea is vacated and the indictment is dismissed and, if the People prevail, then the judgment “should be amended to reflect that result” … . People v Evans, 2025 NY Slip Op 06477, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Here surveillance videos which would have shown whether defendant was not wearing a seatbelt (the claimed probable cause for the traffic stop) were not preserved. Defendant moved to suppress the weapon seized from the vehicle on the ground there was no probable cause for the stop. Defense counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to request an adverse inference charge with respect to the suppression hearing. The remedy: the matter was remitted for legal argument and, if defendant requests, reopening of the suppression hearing.

 

,

IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NOT VISIBLY INTOXICATED WHEN SERVED AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN FOR ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT BAR MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN, THUS SHIFITNG THE BURDEN TO THE PLANTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined, in this Dram Shop Act case, defendant bar did not demonstrate defendant driver was not visibly intoxicated when served alcohol. The dissenters argued the bar met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment:

In support of the motion, defendant submitted evidence that, throughout the evening preceding the accident, plaintiff and a group of others—including the driver—were out celebrating and consumed alcohol. Just before they went to defendant’s bar, the entire group had been denied entry into another establishment because some members of the group were visibly intoxicated. At defendant’s bar, the group was served and consumed more alcohol. Although defendant’s owner and employees testified that defendant’s employees as a general practice do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol and that the employees were trained to recognize visibly intoxicated people, no one could specifically recall seeing the driver, nor could they describe the driver’s level of intoxication on the night at issue … . In fact, none of the deposition testimony submitted by defendant was from an individual physically present inside the bar at the time the driver was allegedly served.

From the dissent:

…. [W]e conclude that defendant met its initial burden on the motion by submitting uncontradicted deposition testimony “in which its employees averred that they had no recollection that [the driver] was visibly intoxicated while she was . . . at [defendant]’s establishment” … . … [D]efendant’s employees testified that staff are trained to recognize visibly intoxicated persons; that bartenders do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol; and that bouncers do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to enter the bar, that they make rounds inside the establishment in order to observe the patrons and determine if anyone is visibly intoxicated, and that they signal the bartenders to stop serving alcohol to patrons who are visibly intoxicated. Additionally, a bouncer testified that he recalled conducting “rounds inside the establishment” on the night of the incident and that he observed the patrons, as was his routine, but did not “signal[ ] to the bartenders that anyone was intoxicated.” Gonzalez v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 06423, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: In moving for summary judgment in a Dram Shop Act case, the defendant bar had the initial burden to demonstrate it did not serve a visibly intoxicated defendant. Because the majority concluded that initial burden was not met, the summary judgment motion was denied without the need to consider the plaintiff’s response. The dissent disagreed with the majority and argued the bar had met its initial burden.​

 

, , ,

HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING AND TERMINATE RESPONDENTS’ PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON A PRIOR ABUSE HEARING; SEVERE ABUSE WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING MUST BE BASED ON A “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” STANDARD, NOT THE “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” STANDARD APPLIED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER OF DISPOSITION WITHOUT HOLDING A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s “severe abuse” finding and the consequent termination of parental rights, determined it was error to make these rulings based upon a prior abuse hearing because “severe abuse” was not alleged in that hearing. In addition, a finding of “severe abuse” must be based on “clear and convincing evidence,” not the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applied in the prior hearing. Also, the judge should not have issued an order of disposition without holding a dispositional hearing:

… [T]he court did not have the authority, in the context of this Social Services Law § 384-b proceeding, to retroactively make a finding of severe abuse under Family Court Act § 1051 (e) based upon the evidence adduced during the prior article 10 abuse proceeding. … Family Court Act § 1051 (e) provides that in an article 10 abuse case, the court may “[i]n addition to a finding of abuse, . . . enter a finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, . . . which shall be admissible in a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to [Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (e)] . . . If the court makes such additional finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, the court shall state the grounds for its determination, which shall be based upon clear and convincing evidence.”

Thus, while it is true that a court is permitted to make a severe abuse finding as part of the disposition in an article 10 abuse case … , that did not occur here. Indeed, in the context of the underlying article 10 proceeding, petitioner did not seek a determination that Respondents severely abused the child, and the court made no such determination. Moreover, the entirety of the court’s findings in the article 10 matter were based upon a preponderance of the evidence—not clear and convincing evidence as required by the statute … . Finally, we note that the court improperly issued an order of disposition in this case before conducting a dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 631; Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.  Matter of Kevin V. (Sara L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06422, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant hospital’s motion for a directed verdict in this med mal case, determined the plaintiff’s expert did not establish the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof. Plaintiff had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) declining life-saving measures. Hospital personnel were not aware of the MOLST when plaintiff presented in the emergency room. When plaintiff became unresponsive, chest compressions were performed. Plaintiff was revived but he had suffered rib fractures. The plaintiff suffered a second heart attack and died seven hours later. The jury awarded damages for pain and suffering:

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for a directed verdict. “[V]iewing the evidence in [the] light most favorable to [plaintiff] and affording [plaintiff] the benefit of every inference,” we conclude that there was “no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of” plaintiff inasmuch as there was no expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof … . At trial, plaintiff’s expert described how a hospital could communicate a patient’s MOLST in order to ensure that it was honored, what hospitals were “allowed” to do, what he would “expect,” what “should” happen, and what “option[s]” were available, but he did not state what an accepted standard of care required. Further, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s expert articulated a standard of care, we conclude that he failed to opine that any such standard was violated under the specific circumstances of this case … . Cianci v University of Rochester, 2025 NY Slip Op 06492, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of vague expert testimony in a med mal case which failed to articulate a standard of care or a breach thereof.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR FINDING NEGLECT ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE PETITION; TO DO SO, THE JUDGE MUST AMEND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED ALLEGATIONS; NEITHER WAS DONE; PETITION DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing the neglect petition, determined Family Court did not follow the required procedure for finding neglect on a ground which was not alleged in the petition. The court may amend the allegations in the petition to conform to the proof, provided the respondent is given a reasonable time to respond to the amended allegations. Here the court did not amend the allegations or give mother time to respond:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (b), “[i]f the proof does not conform to the specific allegations of the petition, the court may amend the allegations to conform to the proof; provided, however, that in such case the respondent shall be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations.” Here, the basis for the court’s finding of neglect pursuant to section 1012 (f) (i) (B) was not alleged in the petition, and the court did not amend the allegations to conform to the proof or give the mother notice or an opportunity to respond to any such implied amendment … . As the mother contends, had she known that the court was considering a theory of neglect based solely on her post-disclosure conduct, she would have prepared a defense to that theory. We therefore conclude that the court’s finding of neglect on that ground was improper … , and the petition must be dismissed … . Matter of Mariah W. (Amber N.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06487, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: To find neglect on a ground not alleged in the petition, the judge must conform the allegations in the petition to the proof and give the respondent time to respond to the amended allegations. Here the failure to follow that procedure resulted in dismissal of the petition.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy