You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the products liability cause of action against the manufacturer of a gas pump fuel nozzle (Husky), and the premises liability cause of action against the gas station (Kwik Fill) should have been dismissed. The plaintiff was sprayed with diesel fuel as she attempted to fill the tank in the bus (manufactured by Coach) she was driving. There was evidence that the design of the fuel system of the bus may have been the cause:

In opposition to Husky’s motion, the Coach defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert and the deposition testimony of the vice president of engineering of defendant Motor Coach Industries, Ltd. The expert opined that the accident was caused by a nozzle malfunction. He did not, however, identify any particular defect in the nozzle, which he did not inspect. We thus conclude that the expert’s opinion is based on mere speculation and is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . …

It is undisputed that the Kwik Fill defendants hired an outside vendor that regularly inspected and serviced their fuel pumps, and, in support of their motion, the Kwik Fill defendants submitted evidence establishing that the vendor determined that the fuel pumps were working properly before and after the accident, thus establishing that the Kwik Fill defendants maintained their property in a reasonably safe condition … . Menear v Kwik Fill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05845, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED IN TAPE WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove that defendant possessed a razor blade partially wrapped in tape with the intent to use it unlawfully against another:

Penal Law § 265.15(4) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he possession by any person of any . . . weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.”

“The presumption of unlawful intent under Penal Law § 265.15(4), like all statutory presumptions in New York, is a permissive presumption, meaning that [it] allows, but does not require, the trier of fact to accept the presumed fact, and does not shift to the defendant the burden of proof'” … . “Before the presumption may apply, the People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the predicate fact or facts the statute requires be proved'” … . “If the People succeed in this endeavor, they are entitled to rely on the presumption, which form[s] part of the support for [their] prima facie case’ against the defendant” … . “The presumption may be rebutted by any evidence in the case; that is, evidence presented by the defendant or the People” … “Evidence rebutting the presumption will not negate the existence of a prima facie case; rather it presents an alternate set of facts, or inferences from facts, to the jury. The jury then has the right to choose between the two versions'” … . …

… [T]he People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the razor blade recovered from the defendant was “designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon” … . There was no testimony by the detectives indicating that they knew based on their experience that the primary use of this type of instrument, by virtue of being wrapped in black tape, was as a weapon, or that they attempted to ascertain from the defendant the manner in which he utilized the blade … . Furthermore, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant considered the instrument to be a weapon … . People v Rodgers, 2019 NY Slip Op 06002, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO FELT POLICE OFFICERS WOULD NOT LIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN DEFENDANT’S HOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and granting a new trial, determined that a defense for-cause challenge to a juror should have been granted, unwarned statements made by the defendant in his home were in response to custodial interrogation, and the statements made at the police station were made after defendant had invoked his right to counsel:

… [B]y repeatedly insisting that police officers were unlikely to lie under oath because doing so would endanger their pensions, the prospective juror “cast serious doubt on [her] ability to render a fair verdict under the proper legal standards” and to follow the court’s instructions concerning, at a minimum, issues of witness credibility … . The court was therefore “required to elicit some unequivocal assurance from the . . . prospective juror[] that [she was] able to reach a verdict based entirely upon the court’s instructions on the law” … . No such assurances were obtained from the prospective juror, …

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was ordered out of his bedroom by police officers in the middle of the night, directed to remain in a vestibule outside his apartment, and thereafter subjected to pointed, accusatory questions for about an hour. Under those circumstances, we agree with defendant that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have felt free to leave, and that he was thus in custody during the questioning … . …

… [D]efendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel by stating “I think I will take the lawyer” or “I think I need a lawyer” … . Thus, we agree with defendant that his statements following his unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel at the police station should have been suppressed as well … . People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 05844, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY BASED UPON DEBRIEFING GANG MEMBERS WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WERE QUALIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS, ACTED AS IMPERMISSIBLE SUMMATION WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the testimony of two police officers (qualified by the court as gang experts( about information gleaned from interviewing gang members was testimonial hearsay, in violation of Crawford, and the police experts acted as summation witnesses, in violation of Iona:

During the trial, the Supreme Court declared Detective Adam Georg an expert “in the hierarchy, practices, [and] languages of the S.N.O.W. Gang and other gangs.” Similarly, the court declared Lieutenant Robert Bracero an expert “in the history, hierarchy, practices and language of the S.N.O.W. Gang and rival gangs.” Georg testified that his knowledge of the S.N.O.W. Gang was derived from, among other things, approximately 70 to 80 debriefings of S.N.O.W. Gang members, many of whom had been arrested and were in custody at the police station or in jail. Similarly, Bracero testified that he debriefed approximately 50 S.N.O.W. Gang members after their arrests. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that Georg’s and Bracero’s testimony violated Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) by permitting the introduction into evidence of out-of-court testimonial statements made by absent witnesses who were never subjected to cross examination … , and that Georg’s testimony also ran afoul of the proscription against police experts acting as summation witnesses, in violation of People v Inoa (25 NY3d 466, 474-475). …

… .[F]or the reasons set forth in our decision and order on appeal by one of the codefendants (People v Jones, 166 AD3d 803), the testimony of Georg and Bracero violated Crawford and Inoa. Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the errors, was far from overwhelming, these errors were not harmless … . People v Campbell, 2019 NY Slip Op 05992, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the note set forth the actual agreement between the parties:

“Because the thrust of a reformation claim is that a writing does not set forth the actual agreement of the parties, generally . . . the parol evidence rule . . . [does not] appl[y] to bar proof, in the form of parol or extrinsic evidence, of the claimed agreement” … . Nevertheless, “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifest[s] the true intention of the parties’ . . . and a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption” … . “The proponent of reformation must show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake . . . exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties’ ” … . …

… [D]efendant here set forth, in detail, the basis for his contention that both parties reached an agreement different from that set forth in the note. The affidavits of the CIO [plaintiff’s chief investment officer] and defendant contain the identical assertion that both parties—plaintiff via the CIO and defendant—agreed that plaintiff’s right to secure repayment of the loan would be limited to defendant’s stock interest … . The affidavits of the CIO and defendant are based upon personal knowledge and state in detail their understanding of the negotiations and the resulting agreement. Moreover, the CIO averred that he negotiated the loan on behalf of plaintiff at the time he was its chief investment officer, and he concluded that the terms of the note did not reflect what the parties had intended. Thus, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, we conclude that defendant submitted the requisite “high level” of proof required to raise a triable issue of fact regarding mutual mistake. Stache Invs. Corp. v Ciolek, 2019 NY Slip Op 05856, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS NIPPED A BOY IN A PRIOR INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should not have been granted. The plaintiffs relied on deposition testimony in which defendant acknowledged she had heard about a prior incident in which a boy was nipped by one of her dogs. Defendant’s statement was inadmissible hearsay:

Plaintiffs failed, however, to submit evidence in admissible form regarding the purported prior incident allegedly establishing the existence of the dogs’ vicious propensities. Instead, plaintiffs relied on defendant’s inadmissible hearsay testimony during her deposition about what she had heard from others regarding the purported prior incident, for which she was not present and about which she had no firsthand knowledge … . Such evidence is insufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden on their motion for summary judgment … .

It is true that, “[i]f a party makes an admission, it is receivable even though knowledge of the fact was derived wholly from hearsay” … . If, however, the party merely admits that he or she heard that an event occurred in the manner stated, the party’s statement is “inadmissible as then it would only . . . amount[ ] to an admission that he [or she] had heard the statement which he [or she] repeated and not to an admission of the facts included in it”… . Here, defendant merely admitted that she had heard that the purported prior incident occurred in the manner stated by others, which is “in no sense an admission of any fact pertinent to the issue, but a mere admission of what [she] had heard without adoption or indorsement. Such evidence is clearly inadmissible” … . Christopher P. v Kathleen M.B., 2019 NY Slip Op 05894, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the ammunition seized during a warrantless parole search of defendant’s residence, and which was connected to a shooting, was not subject to suppression. At the time of the search, defendant’s post release supervision (PRS) had been imposed administratively and not by a judge–a procedure which has since been rendered invalid by statute. The Fourth Department held that, under these facts, the exclusionary rule, which usually requires suppression of the fruits of a warrantless search, would have no deterrent effect and need not be applied:

… [T]he improper conduct sought to be deterred by application of the exclusionary rule in this case is the unauthorized administrative imposition of PRS by a state entity rather than a sentencing judge. In that regard, defendant contends that the state criminal justice system disregarded the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley v Murray (451 F3d 71 [2d Cir 2006]), which held that the administrative imposition of PRS is unconstitutional … , and he contends that application of the exclusionary rule here is necessary to deter similar “misconduct” in the future. We reject that contention.

First, when the parole search took place, in 2007, the issue whether it is proper for the state to administratively impose PRS had not yet been settled … . Second, and more importantly, it is now settled as a matter of state statutory law that only a court may lawfully pronounce a term of PRS as a component of a sentence … and, consequently, all the relevant government actors are now well aware of the law. Under the circumstances, the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule is marginal or nonexistent … . People v Lloyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 05855, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD A MORTGAGE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN LOST; AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT IS AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADMISSIBLE FORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was entitled to an order requiring the county clerk to accept a copy of a mortgage for recording (the original allegedly had been lost and was never recorded). The Second Department further determined that an attorney affidavit was an appropriate vehicle for the submission of the documents to be recorded, which were in admissible form:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action, which sought an order directing the Suffolk County Clerk to accept a copy of the mortgage for recording. The County Clerk has a statutory duty that is ministerial in nature to record a written conveyance if it is duly acknowledged and accompanied by the proper fee (see Real Property Law §§ 290[3]; 291; County Law § 525[1]). “Accordingly, the Clerk does not have the authority to refuse to record a conveyance which satisfies the narrowly-drawn prerequisites set forth in the recording statute” … . Here, the copy of the mortgage submitted on the motion, which is notarized, was subject to recording … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for this relief … , and the plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the facts was not fatal to the motion. The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he or she has no personal knowledge of the facts, may serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, e.g., documents and transcripts … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05966, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. There was sharply conflicting testimony about how the accident happened and whether defendant fled the scene. A witness, Stephen, who allegedly chased defendant down after the accident was not allowed to testify that defendant appeared to be intoxicated:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in excluding Stephen’s testimony that defendant exhibited indicia of intoxication during their interaction immediately after the accident and that, in his opinion, she was intoxicated. Although defendant’s failure to remain at the scene meant that Stephen was the only witness who had an opportunity to observe defendant and interact with her after the accident, the court prohibited Stephen from testifying about his observations of defendant on the ground that he was not an “expert” in signs of intoxication. Contrary to the court’s ruling, it is well settled that a lay witness may testify regarding his or her observation that another individual exhibited signs of intoxication … , and also regarding his or her opinion that another individual was intoxicated … . …

… [P]laintiffs should have been permitted to present Stephen’s testimony with respect to whether defendant appeared to be intoxicated, which would allow the jury to consider whether and to what degree alcohol impaired defendant’s senses and her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events about which she testified at trial. …

… Stephen’s proposed testimony regarding his observations of defendant, i.e., that she fumbled with her license, slurred her speech, and smelled of alcohol, was not cumulative of other evidence already before the jury … . …

Defendant testified that she did not fumble with her license, her speech was not slurred, she did not recall her eyes being “glassy,” and there was no alcohol on her breath. Thus, the excluded testimony from Stephen would have provided ” evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which [defendant] has endeavored to prove’ ” … and therefore fell within the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  Brooks v Blanchard, 2019 NY Slip Op 05847, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

HANDGUN FOUND IN A COAT IN A CLOSET BY A PAROLE OFFICER WITH A PAROLE ABSCONDER WARRANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the suppression court in an appeal by the People, determined the handgun found during a search of defendant’s bedroom pursuant to a parole warrant should not have been suppressed. The parole officer testified she was searching a closet to see if defendant was hiding there when she felt a handgun in the pocket of a jacket she had seen defendant wearing:

In Huntley, the Court of Appeals “relied on the dual nature of a parole officer’s duties and a parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy to hold that a parolee’s constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a parole officer conducts a warrantless search that is rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties” (… see Huntley, 43 NY2d at 179, 181 …). “It would not be enough necessarily that there was some rational connection; the particular conduct must also have been substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … .

Applying this standard, we find that Parole Officer Williams, whose testimony the hearing court credited, acted lawfully in retrieving the firearm from defendant’s jacket pocket. While executing a valid parole warrant, and in the course of searching for defendant pursuant to that warrant, Williams inadvertently felt an object, that both she and her supervisor believed to be a gun, in the jacket pocket. Because parolees are not permitted to possess firearms, Williams’s discovery meant that defendant was in further violation of the conditions of his supervised release. Thus, the minimally invasive step of retrieving the gun from the pocket was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of [her] duty as [defendant’s] parole officer” … . People v Jennings, 2019 NY Slip Op 05838, First Dept 7-30-19

 

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