You are here: / Evidence
, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE FINDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing and remitting the matter to Family Court, determined the court should not have delegated its authority to determine parental access to the parties and should not have made findings without a hearing:

A court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child … . While a child’s views are to be considered in determining custody or parental access, they are not determinative … . An access provision which is conditioned on the desires of the children tends to defeat the right of parental access  … . Here, the Family Court determined that it would not compel either child to visit with the mother. Because the order appealed from effectively conditions the mother’s parental access on the children’s wishes and leaves the determination as to whether there should be access at all to the children, it must be set aside … . The Family Court made its determination based only upon its review of the papers, the in camera interviews, and the colloquy with the unrepresented parties, which occurred in the absence of the attorney for the children. The court did not conduct a hearing, did not direct a forensic examination, and did not seek information from the clinicians involved in the lapsed therapeutic visits. Although there are indications in the record that the mother’s parenting skills may be less than ideal, and she may bear at least some responsibility for her estrangement from the children, the record before us is inadequate to support the Family Court’s refusal to order, at the least, the resumption of therapeutic visits. Furthermore, the court’s finding that the father had done all that he could to encourage the children to visit with the mother was based solely upon the in camera interviews and was not based on any sworn testimony, and the mother was not afforded the opportunity to challenge, either by her own evidence or through cross-examination, the father’s assertions. Matter of Mondschein v Mondschein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06395, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

,

IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON BY THE PEOPLE; OBSERVATION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DRUG TRANSACTION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE; THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIED; THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence was properly denied, finding (1) the suppression court could properly consider all the evidence presented by the People, even if the evidence was not expressly relied upon by the People; (2) although the vehicle occupants were seized at the time the police approached, the officers’ prior observation of what appeared to be a drug transaction provided probable cause; (3) the search of the vehicle was justified by the automobile exception; and (4) the inventory search was lawful:

… [W]e conclude that the court was entitled to consider legal justifications that were supported by the evidence, even if they were not raised explicitly by the People (see CPL 710.60 [6] …). “By presenting evidence sufficient to support the court’s findings, the People met their burden of going forward . . . and the court may rely on any legal justification for police conduct for which there is factual support in the record” … . …

… .[B]efore defendant’s seizure, an officer observed defendant conduct what, based on his training and experience, appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction, even though he “couldn’t tell” what “items” he had seen during the exchange other than money. Additionally, that officer was in the area conducting surveillance on an unrelated narcotics investigation, raising the inference that the transaction occurred in a drug-prone area. Furthermore, once two other officers approached the vehicle based on the above observations, one officer saw packaging material of the kind used to store narcotics, and the other officer observed that the driver of the vehicle engaged in “furtive” behavior. Based on the totality of those factors, we conclude that the police had probable cause to believe that defendant engaged in a narcotics offense justifying the stop of the vehicle and his arrest … . …

“The [automobile] exception requires both probable cause to search the automobile generally and a nexus between the probable cause to search and the crime for which the arrest is being made’ ” … . Based on the foregoing, at the time of the search, the police had probable cause to believe that narcotics or packaging materials used in the sale and possession of narcotics were present in the vehicle … . Thus, inasmuch as there was a nexus between the probable cause to search the vehicle and the crime for which defendant was being arrested, we conclude that the police were not required to obtain a warrant … . People v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 06361, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE DESPITE THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE A KNIFE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the robbery count, despite the victim’s testimony he did not see a knife:

… [T]he victim observed a “small silver ring” in defendant’s hand. Although the victim did not see the blade of a knife at that time, he thought that defendant had a knife based upon his observation of the shiny, metal object in defendant’s hand that defendant tried to press against or jab toward the victim’s stomach. After the victim was able to pull away from defendant and warn him not to further approach, defendant walked away, and the victim called the police to report the crime and provide a description of the suspect. A police officer who responded a few minutes later testified that he apprehended defendant a couple blocks away carrying a Swiss Army knife with the blade extended.

… [W]e conclude that the victim’s testimony regarding his observation of the object in defendant’s hand during the encounter and the officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s apprehension close in time and place while carrying a knife is legally sufficient to support a prima facie case of robbery in the first degree with respect to defendant’s actual possession of a dangerous instrument … . Defendant nonetheless challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the ground that the victim’s further testimony that he “guess[ed]” what he saw “was the edge of [defendant’s] Swiss Army knife that he had” constitutes inadmissible hearsay because the victim was repeating information that he must have obtained from the police regarding the precise nature of the object in defendant’s possession. Even assuming, arguendo, that such further testimony by the victim constituted inadmissible hearsay, we note that “the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … , and that is not the case here given the sufficiency of the remaining evidence … . People v Rawlinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 06354, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER INDICTMENT, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly dismissed the murder/manslaughter indictment because the grand jury was not charged with the defense of property justification defense. After decedent had twice attacked defendant inside the home, the decedent reentered the home from the front yard and was shot by the defendant:

During a recess in the grand jury proceeding, defendant asked the People to deliver to the grand jury foreperson a letter requesting, among other things, that the grand jurors be charged with respect to the justifiable use of physical force in defense of a person pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 and the justifiable use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of a burglary pursuant to § 35.20 (3). The People did not deliver the letter to the foreperson.

The People instructed the grand jury on the law with respect to murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), manslaughter in the first degree (§ 125.20 [1]), and the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15; however, the People did not instruct the grand jury with respect to the justification defense pursuant to § 35.20 (3).

… [W]e conclude that the court properly dismissed the indictment based on the People’s failure to instruct the grand jury on the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.20 (3) … . A court may dismiss an indictment on the ground that a grand jury proceeding is defective where, inter alia, the proceeding is so irregular “that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result” (CPL 210.35 [5]; see CPL 210.20 [1] [c]). With respect to grand jury instructions, CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that, “[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it.” “If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an instruction regarding the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.20 (3) was warranted, and the prosecutor’s failure to provide that instruction impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding (see CPL 210.35 [5]). Furthermore, we conclude that the error was not cured by the instruction regarding the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.15 … . People v Ball, 2019 NY Slip Op 06295, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HE WAS ASKED POINTED QUESTIONS, NO MIRANDA WARNING REQUIRED; POLICE OFFICER’S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE IS IRRELEVANT; RAPE FIRST IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined: (1) the defendant was not in custody when he was asked pointed questions so the Miranda warnings were not required; (2) a police officer’s subjective belief defendant was not free to leave is not relevant to a Miranda analysis; and (3) rape first degree is an inclusory current count of predatory sexual assault:

… [T]he evidence establishes, inter alia, that defendant was told at the start of the interview that he was not under arrest and would be going home that day … , and the recording of the interview belies defendant’s contention that he was in handcuffs when he was placed in the interview room. Defendant concedes that he indeed was not arrested at the time of the interview, and that he was given a ride home later that day. We reject defendant’s contention that, because a police officer testified that defendant was not free to leave during transport to the police station, the court erred in concluding that defendant was not in custody. A police officer’s subjective belief ” has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was in custody at a particular time . . . [and] the subjective intent of the officer . . . is irrelevant’ where, as here, there is no evidence that such subjective intent was communicated to the defendant” … . Contrary to defendant’s further contention, Miranda warnings were not required before the investigators asked pointed questions. It is well settled that “both the elements of police custody’ and police interrogation’ must be present before law enforcement officials constitutionally are obligated to provide the procedural safeguards imposed upon them by Miranda” … , and the element of custody was absent here. People v Baez, 2019 NY Slip Op 06294, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S HIRING THE KILLER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence supported the first degree murder charge, based upon defendant’s hiring the killer. The dissent argued the proof of the contract-killing was insufficient. The second degree murder count should have been dismissed:

We and our dissenting colleagues agree on many points. All of us agree that there was sufficient evidence that defendant was complicit in his wife’s murder. Further, all of us agree that there is evidence that the principal requested a payment of money from defendant only five days before the murder. Nevertheless, our dissenting colleagues characterize that request as “part of a string of otherwise innocent interactions” between defendant and the principal in the days leading up to the murder. The dissent even offers the possibility that the principal was “seeking a reward” from defendant—not for agreeing to murder defendant’s wife, but for unrelated virtuous conduct. We cannot agree. In our view, the jury could rationally have concluded that the principal’s request for a payment of money five days before the murder was not “innocent” at all, but in fact was part and parcel of the murder plot. People v Clayton, 2019 NY Slip Op 06284, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

SORA RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE, NO PROOF AGE OF CHILDREN DEPICTED IN PORNOGRAPHY WAS LESS THAN TEN (FOURTH DEPT

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s risk level from two to one, finding there was no proof the children depicted in pornography were less than ten years old:

Defendant was convicted of possessing a sexual performance by a child (Penal Law § 263.16), which requires proof, inter alia, that defendant possessed a play, motion picture, or photograph depicting sexual conduct involving a child who is less than 16 years of age (see §§ 263.00 [1], [4]; 263.16). Consequently, defendant’s plea of guilty to that charge does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that 30 points should be assessed under risk factor 5 … . Additionally, the evidence submitted by the People, including the presentence report, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that any of the victims was 10 years of age or less  … . The clear and convincing evidence, including the references to the children in the images possessed by defendant in the presentence report as preadolescent or prepubescent, coupled with the report’s definition of such children as being between 10 and 13 years of age, however, supports the imposition of 20 points under risk factor 5 … . People v Spratley, 2019 NY Slip Op 06283, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s burn injuries was a guest’s (Gray’s) pouring kerosene onto an active fire in a fire pit at defendants’ home. All parties were adults. The mere presence of kerosene at the home did not constitute a dangerous condition. The dissenter argued defendant-parent did not demonstrate his daughter did not breach a duty to control the conduct of Gray:

Although plaintiff correctly contends that defendants owed him a duty of care as a guest on their property … , defendants’ submissions establish that they did not breach their duty to “act as . . . reasonable [persons] in maintaining [the] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . All attendees of the gathering at defendants’ property on the night of the incident were adults, and it was not unreasonable for defendants to allow the small group of adults to use the premises for an unsupervised gathering around a fire pit. Bavisotto v Doldan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06247, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

NO QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE THE STORM, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment under the storm in progress rule. The dissenters argued there was a question of fact whether the icy condition was there before the storm:

… [W]e conclude that defendants established as a matter of law “that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that [they] had no duty to remove the snow [or] ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm’ ” … .

Where, as here, a defendant’s own submissions do not raise an issue of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, nothing in her deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendants in support of their respective motions, raised a triable issue of fact whether the ice she allegedly observed existed before the storm … , and the evidence that plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motions also did not raise a triable issue of fact. Battaglia v MDC Concourse Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06310, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE AN ALIBI WITNESS WAS NOT INTERVIEWED; A WITNESS’S RECANTATION WAS PROPERLY FOUND UNBELIEVABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. The motion alleged that defense counsel did not adequately investigate alibi witnesses. The Fourth Department also held that County Court properly found a witness’s recantation of trial testimony unbelievable:

In recognition of the fact that “[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony” … , courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., “(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness’s demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the trial testimony; (4) the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the recantation; (5) the importance of facts established at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship between the witness and defendant as related to a motive to lie” … .  Another relevant factor is “whether the recantation refutes the eyewitness testimony of another witness” … . …

… [D]defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was supported by notarized but unsworn statements of two previously unknown individuals who claimed that they would have corroborated the trial testimony of defendant and his mother that defendant was at a party at his mother’s home for the entire evening of the shooting. One of those witnesses specifically stated that she was at all times willing to “make [a] statement” but was never contacted by defense counsel. Two additional witnesses stated that they observed defendant at that party some time after the shooting. While those witnesses do not provide a technical alibi for defendant because they did not discuss defendant’s location at the time of the shooting … , they tend to support the alibi evidence that defendant could not have been the shooter because he was at a party at his mother’s house for the entire evening … . People v Howard, 2019 NY Slip Op 06309, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

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