You are here: / Evidence
,

CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL RELEASE AS OPPOSED TO A LIMITED RELEASE CONCERNING ONLY THOSE AREAS OF HIS BODY AT ISSUE IN THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was not required to provide an unlimited medical release. Claimant should have been required to provide a release limited to those areas of his body which were at issue in the claim for benefits:

The Board’s regulations provide that a limited release is a “limited authorization to obtain relevant medical records regarding the prior medical history of the body part or illness at issue” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). It is applicable “if the claimant files a completed employee claim form and indicates on the form that he or she had a prior injury to the same body part or similar illness to the one(s) listed on the form” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). There is no question that, prior to filing his claim, claimant received medical treatment from various physicians for the same sites of injury dating back to at least 2011. It is evident from the record and the briefs that both parties agree that the employer is entitled to claimant’s past medical records for the claimed sites. That said, claimant maintains that the Board erred in requiring him to sign an open-ended HIPAA release, without limiting that release to treatment records pertaining to the claimed sites. Although the employer would certainly be entitled to the medical records of all providers, once identified, who treated the claimed sites, the fact remains that claimant was only obligated to provide a limited release for those providers. As such, we agree with claimant that the Board erred in directing him to provide an unlimited medical release. Matter of Trusewicz v Delta Envtl., 2019 NY Slip Op 09336, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT-ORDERED DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to grant defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with discovery orders. Discovery had been ongoing for years with several conferences with the judge and several orders to comply with new discovery demands:

… [I]t is undisputed that defendants’ motion to strike the complaint failed to include an affirmation of good faith as required by 22 NYCRR 202.7 … . Moreover, this error is compounded by the lack of other record evidence demonstrating that defendants engaged in good faith efforts to resolve the ongoing discovery issues without the need for judicial intervention. Despite plaintiff having at least partially complied with defendants’ discovery demands, the record is devoid of any correspondence or other documentation indicating that defendants ever specifically informed plaintiff’s counsel, other than in a generalized conclusory manner, in what manner the subject discovery responses were deficient or inadequate. Further, following the filing of defendants’ April 2018 motion to strike, defendants’ counsel failed to respond to four separate letters sent by plaintiff’s counsel in May 2018 wherein he provided certain additional discovery and otherwise attempted to ascertain from defendants what, if any, paper discovery remained outstanding. Notably, defendants have provided no explanation as to why they failed to provide any such response prior to the filing of defendants’ second motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint … .

Although we appreciate Supreme Court’s concern regarding the length of time that this action has been pending and the fact that the various discovery responses that plaintiff’s counsel did provide were unquestionably untimely, we do not find that defendants have established a “deliberately evasive, misleading and uncooperative course of conduct or a determined strategy of delay [by plaintiff] that would be deserving of the most vehement condemnation” … . Mesiti v Weiss. 2019 NY Slip Op 09343. Third Dept 12-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING PRODUCED AND APPARENT POSSESSION (IN A BACKPACK) OF CHEMICAL REAGENTS (BATTERIES AND SALT) USED IN METH PRODUCTION, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF METH LAB EQUIPMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions relating to his presence in an apartment where methamphetamine was being produced, determined the evidence did not support the defendant’s constructive possession of the relevant contraband in the apartment:

… [W]e find that the evidence fell short of establishing that defendant constructively possessed the requisite items with the necessary intent. The uncontroverted evidence established that defendant did not live in or have keys to the apartment or store any of his personal belongings there … . Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the apartment was leased to Stevens and Short, that Schunk had recently been staying in the apartment and that defendant and Gardner had arrived at the apartment, as guests, not long before the police. Stevens, Short and Gardner … adamantly testified that, although he likely knew what was occurring in the apartment, defendant did not participate in the process of preparing, producing or manufacturing the methamphetamine…. . Stevens and Short each testified that defendant did not use methamphetamine that day, that they had never observed defendant use methamphetamine and that defendant was only in the apartment to try to convince Schunk that she needed to enter a rehabilitation program. Stevens also testified that defendant did not know how to make methamphetamine. Further, the responding officers stated that, unlike their observations of Stevens, they did not observe any black soot, which is indicative of methamphetamine production, on defendant’s clothing or hands. …

Stevens testified that defendant arrived with a backpack and that batteries (a reagent [used in meth production]) from that backpack went into the bathroom with him and Gardner. Stevens vaguely testified that the backpack contained “lab equipment,” but stated that he did not see defendant use anything out of the backpack. The evidence revealed that a backpack was ultimately recovered from the living room and that the backpack contained sea salt, a reagent in the production of methamphetamine, but no “lab equipment.”

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , the evidence could reasonably support the conclusion that defendant had dominion or control over two reagents — batteries and salt. However, considering the witness testimony and the photographs demonstrating the extremely cluttered state of the living room and apartment overall, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that defendant “had the ability and intent to exercise dominion or control over” any of the items of lab equipment seized from the apartment … . People v Gillette, 2019 NY Slip Op 09323, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A REFERRING PHYSICIAN CAN NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN TO WHOM THE PATIENT WAS REFERRED, THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR HER OWN NEGLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONFERRING WITH THE OTHER PHYSICIAN ABOUT THEIR DIFFERENT FINDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment by one of the two doctors who examined plaintiff (Dr. Andreyko) should not have been granted:

Although a medical provider cannot be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a physician to whom a patient is referred, the referring medical provider may be held liable for his or her own independent negligent conduct that proximately causes the patient injury … …

Here, Andreyko examined the plaintiff on May 30, 2012, and noted the existence of palpable masses, “tender to palpation,” in the plaintiff’s right breast. Later that day, the plaintiff was examined by Wertkin who, though detecting thickening of the right breast, did not detect any palpable masses. Wertkin reported his findings to Andreyko who, upon reviewing them, reviewed her notes from her examination of the plaintiff but did not contact Wertkin to discuss the differences in their respective examinations. We conclude that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Andreyko, upon learning that Wertkin was unable to palpate any masses in the plaintiff’s right breast, departed from the accepted standard of care by failing to advise Wertkin that Andreyko had been able to palpate distinct masses in the plaintiff’s breast, and whether Andreyko’s failure to do so was a substantial factor in contributing to the delay in diagnosis that the plaintiff had breast cancer. Notably, Wertkin testified at his deposition that, given the plaintiff’s medical history, had he been able to locate any distinct palpable masses in the plaintiff’s breast, the standard of care would have called for a biopsy of the breast. Yanchynska v Wertkin, 2019 NY Slip Op 09320, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the search warrant for business computers, computer files and documents amounted to a general warrant, and the items seized should have been suppressed. The warrant was procured by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) and targeted two realty companies which were alleged to have involvement in the illegal construction and demolition of a rent-stabilized building:

The search warrant … permitted the OAG to search and seize broad categories of items relating to 1578 Union Street Realty Corporation, Dream Home Realty, and a number of other businesses allegedly controlled by the defendant through which he had conducted real estate transactions. The items permitted to be searched and seized included: corporate documents; employment records, employee lists, and employment contracts; all calendar books, appointment books, and address books; all computers, computer hard drives, and computer files stored on other media; and all bank, tax and financial records. The warrant did not name or specify any particular crime or offense to which the search was related, and did not incorporate the affidavit by reference. * * *

… [O]ther than a date restriction covering a period of approximately five years, the warrant permitted the OAG to search and seize all computers, hard drives, and computer files stored on other devices, without any guidelines, parameters, or constraints on the type of items to be viewed and seized … . As has been observed by federal courts, where the property to be searched is computer files, “the particularity requirement assumes even greater importance” … since “[t]he potential for privacy violations occasioned by an unbridled exploratory search” of such files is “enormous” … .

Additionally, as to paper documents, the warrant merely identified generic classes of items, effectively permitting the OAG to search and seize virtually all conceivable documents that would be created in the course of operating a business … . People v Melamed, 2019 NY Slip Op 09295, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s (PennyMac’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough Somarriba and Carras-Gomez “stated in [their] affidavit[s] that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . Instead, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of bulk mailing, which did not identify any particular mailing, and two internal reports generated by the plaintiff, which appear to demonstrate that some unidentified pieces of mail were sent to the borrower’s address … . Additionally, no foundation was laid for the admission of these business records, as neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez attested that they had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into PennyMac’s own records or routinely relied upon by PennyMac in its business … . Finally, the plaintiff failed, alternatively, to provide proof of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, to provide 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” … . Neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez averred that they had personal knowledge of any such standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff. PennyMac Corp. v Khan, 2019 NY Slip Op 09278, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

SPANISH-LANGUAGE CONVICTION RECORDS FROM PUERTO RICO, WHICH WERE NOT TRANSLATED, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT TO BE A SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating the risk level determination, determined the proof defendant was a sex offender was insufficient. The documents relating to a conviction in Puerto Rico were in Spanish and were not translated:

We agree with defendant that, in making its determination that defendant is a sex offender, the Board erred in relying on documents in Spanish that were not accompanied by an English translation (see generally CPLR 2101 [b]). Upon defendant’s objection during the SORA hearing to the Board’s determination, no additional documents were submitted to support the Board’s determination. Thus, there is no English-translated document stating the offense of which defendant was convicted in Puerto Rico, and therefore there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was convicted of a felony offense in another jurisdiction … . In addition, the purported sex offender registration form showing that defendant was required to register in Puerto Rico is entirely in Spanish, and thus there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Puerto Rico … . People v Ramos, 2019 NY Slip Op 09153, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION, THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, granted defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and ordered a new trial, based upon the People’s failure to notify the defense of a second eyewitness to the shooting (a Brady violation). The opinion is too detailed factually and too comprehensive legally to fully summarize here:

Several months after the trial concluded, the assistant district attorney who tried the case received an inter-office email attaching a report from a detective who had interviewed an eyewitness to the shooting. The ADA and another prosecutor had themselves interviewed the witness before the trial, having learned that a man who had been arrested for a drug sale near the Polo Grounds told a detective that he had seen the Philips shooting. The prosecutors spoke to the eyewitness in the detective’s presence, and no one took notes. Both prosecutors recalled only that the witness said he saw a man in brown clothes go down the 110 step-staircase, shoot Phillips, and go back up the steps. The ADA concluded that the statement was “cumulative” and did not disclose it to the defense. However, after receiving the email, he notified defendant’s trial counsel about the witness, and attached the report, which he stated he had not known had ever been created. * * *

Defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights, including his rights under Brady. Defendant noted that the prosecution failed to disclose that it had interviewed a second eyewitness two years before trial and failed to disclose the report. Defendant’s trial lawyer submitted an affirmation in which he explained how timely disclosure of the information would have affected his preparation of the defense, including a misidentification defense. His investigator also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that timely disclosure would have been valuable because the statement contained “several strong leads.” For example, he would have spoken to the eyewitness before his memory faded or he became uncooperative, and he would have located the other two people who were sitting with the eyewitness. In addition, the rumor that Phillips robbed Social Security recipients was another lead that would have caused the investigator to seek out people not otherwise on the defense “radar” for potential leads about Phillips or those who wanted to kill him. People v McGhee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09116, First Dept 12-19-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER IN A PAPER BAG AND RUNNING INSIDE A NEARBY BUILDING; THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD WAS PROPERLY INFERRED FROM DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF BOTH REAL AND COUNTERFEIT BILLS, KEPT SEPARATELY ON HIS PERSON (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly pursued and detained after a police officer saw him on the street drinking from a container inside a paper bag and then saw him run inside a nearby building as the officer approached. The Court further determined the intent to defraud could be inferred from the defendant’s possession of counterfeit bills. The defendant had both counterfeit and real money on his person, kept separately. The issues were succinctly described in the dissent:

From the dissent:

The majority lauds the hot pursuit and forcible detention of Clinton Britt, a man drinking a Lime-A-Rita&TLRtrade; wrapped in a brown paper bag in Times Square shortly before midnight, and his subsequent conviction for intending to spend counterfeit money absent any indication that he attempted or planned to use it, simply because it was found rubber-banded separately from his real money when he was searched upon arrest. Both are mistakes.

The first — let’s chase and physically detain people drinking from unseen containers in brown paper bags — is perhaps understandable because of the tremendous difficulty inherent in the mis-application of our De Bour test in many real-world situations. The sad consequence of that mistake is a regression from the legislative and prosecutorial progress eschewing policing based on stereotypes, returning us to the world of broken windows — where police pursue quality of life violations that disproportionately affect the poor (not merely those committing the infractions, but their families, neighbors and communities).

The second — let’s equate the separation of real from counterfeit money with the intent to defraud — is inexplicable. It overturns our clear holding in People v Bailey (13 NY3d 67 [2009]), by contravening the most fundamental proposition of evidence: a fact is not evidence unless it makes the disputed issue more likely to be true than it otherwise would be. Put simply, if you knew you had counterfeit money on your person and did not want to use it, you would keep it separate from your real money. That [defendant] kept his real and fake money separate says nothing about his intent to use it to defraud, deceive or injure anyone, which is a statutory requirement under Penal Law § 170.30. People v Britt, 2019 NY Slip Op 09060, CtApp 12-19-19

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, held the suppression court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the People to reopen the suppression hearing to present another witness after the People had rested. The court subsequently denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals framed the issue around the “one full opportunity” rule which precludes reopening a hearing in other contexts and decided not to extend the rule to the “”pre-ruling” stage of a suppression hearing:

In Havelka [45 NY2d 636], we applied the “one full opportunity” rule to a holding by an appellate court overturning the decision of the suppression court. In Kevin W [22 NY3d 287}. we applied the same rule to the suppression court’s decision to reopen the hearing after its ruling on the merits of the motion. Defendant now asks us to apply the rule at a point still earlier in the process, similarly restricting the suppression court’s discretion before any decision is made. This we decline to do.

A basic concern underlying both Havelka and Kevin W. is finality, described as the “haunt[ing] . . . specter of renewed proceedings” after the defendant initially has prevailed … . We explained in Havelka that allowing the People to present additional evidence at a new hearing would render success at the original suppression hearing “nearly meaningless” … . The People, we said, should not get “a second chance to succeed where once they tried and failed” … . However, that concern is absent where no decision on the motion has been rendered by the hearing court: no victory will be rendered “nearly meaningless.”

The second issue of concern weighing in favor of the “one full opportunity” rule — the risk of improperly tailored testimony at the reopened proceedings — is significantly lower where the People do not have a formal decision from either an appellate court or the hearing court. People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 09059, CtApp 12-19-19

 

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