You are here: / Evidence
, ,

EVEN WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING FELONY, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE FELONY-MURDER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTS CAUSING THE VICTIM’S DEATH AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the murder second degree conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have given the jury instruction for the affirmative defense to felony murder. When defendant’s back was turned, a co-defendant shot and killed a man standing at the passenger door of a vehicle. Defendant then knocked to the ground a woman standing at the driver’s side of the vehicle and stole her purse. Defendant was not armed and stated to the police he did not know the co-defendant intended to commit a crime:

It is an affirmative defense to felony murder that the defendant “(a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance [*2]readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons; and (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). * * *

Even where, as here, the evidence shows that a defendant “intentionally aided [the primary assailant] in the commission of” the underlying felony, a trial court errs in refusing to charge the affirmative defense to felony murder where there is evidence that the defendant “did not participate in the acts causing the victim’s death” … . Here, the trial evidence was “reasonably supportive of the view” that defendant satisfied the four elements of the affirmative defense and, “regardless of evidence to the contrary, the court [was] without discretion to deny the charge, and error in this regard requires reversal and a new trial” … . People v Rosa, 2025 NY Slip Op 03907, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Where there is evidence to support the elements of the affirmative defense to felony murder, the judge has no discretion and must instruct the jury on the defense, even where there is evidence to the contrary.

 

,

THE CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS BY THE OWNER OF THE STOLEN CAR AND AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE CAR WAS GREATER THAN $3000; CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the possession-of-stolen-property-third-degree conviction, determined the value of the stolen property, a vehicle, was not proven:

Here, in addition to photographs of the vehicle admitted in evidence, the victim testified that he purchased the subject 2010 Toyota Prius as a new vehicle for approximately $20,000, that he drove it 240,000 miles over the course of the subsequent 12 years, and that it was in a “[h]eavily used,” albeit running, condition when it was stolen. Although the victim testified that he had previously consulted the “blue book” when considering whether to sell the vehicle, he ultimately provided, based on the condition of the vehicle and unspecified research, only vague testimony that his “guess” or “approximate estimation” was that the vehicle was valued at $4,000, which constituted a “[c]onclusory statement[ or] rough estimate[ ] of value [that is] not sufficient to establish the value of the property” at the time of its theft … . Moreover, although a police officer testified that he estimated that the vehicle was valued between $6,000 and $10,000 based on his observations of the vehicle and consultation with the “blue book,” that testimony was also conclusory. Indeed, there was no evidence that the officer had accurately ascertained the “blue book” value—which inexplicably varied significantly from the victim’s estimate—by appropriately accounting for the age, mileage, and condition of the vehicle … . Based on the evidence of value in the record, we cannot conclude ” ‘that the jury ha[d] a reasonable basis for inferring, rather than speculating, that the value of the property exceeded the statutory threshold’ of $3,000″ … . Consequently, we conclude on this record that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the value of the stolen vehicle was greater than $3,000 … . People v Szurgot, 2025 NY Slip Op 03906, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the conclusory statements by the owner of the stolen car and the investigating officer estimating the value of the car constituted legally insufficient evidence that the value of the stolen property was greater than $3000.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHICH WAS BEING CHASED BY POLICE AND WHICH FAILED TO OBEY A STOP SIGN; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a Honda which was being chased by police. Defendant, whose car was struck by the Honda when the driver of the Honda failed to obey a stop sign, could justifiably assume the driver of the Honda would obey the stop sign. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether defendant breached the duty to see what should be seen:

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that he was free of comparative fault. … [Defendant testified] the collision occurred “instantly” after he first saw the car. * * * … [P]laintiff testified that he “blacked out” in the accident and did not know how it was caused. He was not even sure that the accident occurred at an intersection. All he could remember was the Honda proceeding straight with the police behind them and that he was “a little shaken up because [he had] never been in a high speed [chase].” That was “all [he could] remember, and [then] it was just boom.” Another occupant of the Honda testified that, as the Honda approached the intersection, “[i]t tried to stop, but . . . [they] were going a little too fast” and slid into the intersection. Defendant therefore established that the Honda never stopped at the stop sign before proceeding into the intersection and colliding with defendant’s vehicle. Inasmuch as the evidence submitted by defendant established that he had, at most, “only seconds to react” to the Honda that failed to yield the right-of-way, he established as a matter of law that he was not comparatively negligent … . Brown v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03902, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle which was being chased by police and which did not obey a stop sign. The complaint against defendant, brought by a passenger in the vehicle which ran the stop sign, should have been dismissed. A two-justice dissent argued there was a question of fact whether defendant breached the duty of a driver to see what could be seen.

 

,

THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, granting defendant’s suppression motion and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, determined the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which prohibits the search of a vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana, applied to defendant’s case, even though the statute had not been enacted at the time of the search. The statute had been enacted at the time of the suppression hearing:

On this appeal, we are tasked with answering a question left open by the Court of Appeals in People v Pastrana (41 NY3d 23, 29 [2023] …) — namely, whether Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a), enacted as part of the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (hereinafter MRTA), applies to a post-enactment suppression hearing concerning a pre-enactment search. * * *

… Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) — enacted as part of the MRTA — provides that “in any criminal proceeding including proceedings pursuant to [CPL] 710.20 . . . , no finding or determination of reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed shall be based solely on evidence of . . . the odor of cannabis” … . CPL 710.20 pertains to motions to suppress evidence. By this comprehensive and present tense language, Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) expressly limits a suppression court’s authority to base a probable cause finding solely upon evidence of the odor of marihuana without regard to when the vehicle search occurred. * * *

… [T]his provision is directed at the present evidentiary findings of a court, “and no real question of retroactive effect on past conduct or events is presented” … . Since Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) was in effect at the time of the suppression hearing and the suppression court’s probable cause finding was based solely upon the fact that the trooper smelled the odor of marihuana emanating from the vehicle, that determination was erroneous as a matter of law … . People v Martin, 2025 NY Slip Op 03842, Third Dept 6-26-25

Practice Point: Here the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was deemed to apply to the evidence which can be considered at a probable-cause-to-search-a-vehicle hearing. Therefore there was no need to apply the statute retroactively where the search was pre-enactment but the suppression hearing was post-enactment.

 

,

WHERE AN UNSECURED LADDER MOVES AND PLAINTIFF FALLS, PLAINTIFF CANNOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case:

… [P]laintiffs established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries by submitting evidence that the unsecured ladder moved and fell, causing the injured plaintiff to fall, and that he was not provided with any safety devices … .

In opposition … defendants … failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s alleged misuse of the ladder was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Where, as here, the injured plaintiff is provided with an unsecured ladder and no safety devices, he cannot be held solely at fault for his injuries … . Garcia v Fed LI, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03795, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: As long as the failure to provide adequate safety equipment is a proximate cause of a ladder fall, i.e., the failure to secure the ladder to prevent movement, defendant will not be able to win the argument that plaintiff’s actions were to sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff will be entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(10 cause of action.

 

, , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act suit, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the bill of particulars to add deposition testimony which included witness statements made to plaintiff’s attorneys concerning the defendant teacher:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend or supplement a pleading is to be ‘freely given'” … . “‘In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . “The burden of proof in establishing prejudice or surprise, or that the proposed amendment lacks merit, falls to the party opposing the motion for leave to amend” … . “[T]he decision of whether to grant or deny leave to amend is subject to the discretion of the trial court” … .

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars to include the proposed witness’s statements to [plaintiff’s attorneys]. The proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . In this case, having failed to oppose the motion, the District defendants failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating any prejudice or surprise … . Fitzpatrick v Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03794, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed. Here deposition testimony about vague and contradictory statements made to plaintiff’s counsel by witnesses concerning defendant teacher’s alleged interaction with students can properly be added to the bill of particulars, criteria explained.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VICTIM’S GUN AND FIRED AFTER THE VICTIM FIRED AT HIM; DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, ATTEMPTED ASSAULT AND ASSAULT BUT CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON “TEMPORARY LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a jury instruction on lawful possession of a weapon should have been granted. Defendant raised the justification defense and was acquitted of the attempted murder, attempted assault and assault charges:

According to the defense theory, Farmer [the victim] fired several shots at the defendant before the defendant took possession of a gun and fired back at Farmer. Defense counsel also requested a charge on the defense of justification … as to the counts of criminal possession of a weapon, and a charge on the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon as to those counts. The Supreme Court issued a deadly physical force justification charge, but declined to instruct the jury on the defenses of justification pursuant to Penal Law § 35.05(2) and temporary and lawful possession of a weapon with respect to the counts of criminal possession of a weapon. * * *

As reflected by the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of the charges of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and attempted assault in the first degree, based upon a justification defense, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant took possession of the gun with a valid legal excuse … . The fact that the defendant fired a gun on a public street does “not negate a defendant’s entitlement to a temporary lawful possession instruction where the shooting was justified and the possession was otherwise lawful” … . Further, “the defendant’s intent to turn the subject weapon over to the lawful authorities is not a necessary element of the defense of temporary and lawful possession” … . Moreover, there is no evidence that the defendant retained the gun after fleeing the location of the shooting … . People v Walker, 2025 NY Slip Op 03830, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: Defendant claimed he took possession of the victim’s gun and fired only after the victim had fired at him. The jury should have been instructed on “temporary lawful possession of a weapon.”

 

, , , ,

A POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIMS BUT THE VICTIMS DID NOT TESTIFY; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL MENTIONED THE LACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE ARGUMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED; THEREFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional “confrontation” issue first raised on appeal had not been preserved. A police officer testified about the identities and physical descriptions of the assailants provided by one of the victims while she was being treated in an ambulance. The victims were expected to testify but never did:

Defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case did not invoke the Confrontation Clause and the colloquy that took place between defense counsel and the court makes clear that the motion to dismiss was neither intended nor understood to raise a constitutional issue.  Moreover, counsel did not invoke or rely on any caselaw dealing with constitutional protections. Instead, counsel made evidentiary arguments regarding the persuasive quality of the prosecution’s proof and, when asked by the court, confirmed that the motion was limited to the sufficiency of the evidence. Further, the timing of defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case—which defense counsel specifically referred to as “a trial order of dismissal” …—suggests that defendant’s aim was not to challenge testimony of the victim’s statements as violative of his right to confrontation, but simply as failing to meet the evidentiary bar for a prima facie case … . Additionally, counsel repeatedly told the court that his motion was “focus[ed]” on the third-degree robbery charge, demonstrating that the argument was a legal insufficiency one, rather than a Confrontation Clause challenge, which would necessarily apply to all charges with equal force. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the mere reference to a lack of cross-examination was insufficient to alert the court that defendant was making a constitutional argument … . People v Bacon, 2025 NY Slip Op 03692, CtApp 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the violation of defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was a viable issue because statements made by two witness were described by a police officer but the witnesses did not testify. Although defense counsel mentioned the inability to cross-examine the witnesses in a “sufficiency-of-evidence” argument before the trial court, the constitutional confrontation argument was not specifically raised. The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional issue was not preserved for appeal.

 

,

IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS REQUIRED FOR PLAINTIFF’S WORK MANDATED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; RE: THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT-OWNER HAD A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LADDER-SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, THE OWNER’S LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding the award of summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case. There was conflicting evidence whether a ladder was required for the work assigned to plaintiff. In addition, the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed on the ground the defendant owner did not exercise control over the worksite because the owner has a nondelegable duty to ensure compliance with the Industrial Code:

Where, as here, “credible evidence reveals differing versions of the accident,” one under which the defendant would be liable and another under which it would not, questions of fact exist making summary judgment inappropriate … . Accordingly, the court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition … .

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on “owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor” … . Because an owner’s duty under Labor Law § 241(6) is nondelegable, the Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) on the ground that the record was “devoid of any information” that the defendant had “control over the worksite” … . …

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv), which requires that ladders “be maintained in good condition” and must not be used if they have “any flaw or defect of material that may cause ladder failure,” is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) …. . Contrary to its contention, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not violate this provision. … [Plaintiff] testified that the ladder shook beneath him, and the defendant did not submit evidence of the condition of the specific ladder at issue or the surface on which the ladder was situated … . Under these circumstances, the defendant also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not violate 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii), which provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm,” and “[s]lippery surfaces and insecure object … . Cabrera v Provident Alpine Partners, L.P., 2025 NY Slip Op 03700,, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here in this ladder-fall case, conflicting evidence about whether a ladder was required for plaintiff’s work mandated denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

Practice Point: An owner’s liability under Labor Law 241(6) is based on a nondelegable duty, not on whether the owner controls the work site.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE; THE AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims and remitting the matter for a new determination of damages for past pain and suffering. The Court of Claims interpreted the ad damnum clause which read “!0.000.000” to mean $10,000 and awarded that amount. The Second Department noted that the amount of damages should be based on the evidence, not on the ad damnum clause:​

… [A]lthough the Court of Claims found that the claimant’s evidence could support a “substantial recovery for past and future pain and suffering,” it limited the award of damages to $10,000 based on its interpretation of the ad damnum clause. The court should have granted “any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded” (CPLR 3017[a] …). Although the trier of fact’s “determination is entitled to great deference, it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” … . An award of $10,000 deviates materially from awards for similar injuries … . Consequently, the court should have awarded an amount for past pain and suffering that was supported by the evidence submitted by the claimant … . Bonneau v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03699, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: The damages awarded for past pain and suffering should be based on the evidence. The award is not limited to the amount in the ad damnum clause of the claim.​

 

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