You are here: / Evidence
,

THE FACTS SUPPORTED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER, DEFENDANT WAS SEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE THE DEFENDANT APPROACHED THE VICTIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that the consecutive sentences for possession of a weapon and murder were supported by the facts:

“So long as a defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon, the possessory crime has already been completed, and consecutive sentencing is permissible”… . Here, the record supports Supreme Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Video surveillance evidence showed defendant in possession of the gun several minutes before approaching the victim, supporting the conclusion that defendant possessed the weapon for a sufficient period of time before forming the specific intent to kill. Thus, consecutive sentencing was permissible. People v Malloy, 2019 NY Slip Op 05061, CtApp 6-25-19

 

, ,

SURVEILLANCE VIDEO CONSTITUTED BRADY MATERIAL WHICH COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR HAD SEEN THE VIDEO BUT TOLD THE JURY NO VIDEO EXISTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People’s failure to turn over to the defense a surveillance video which captured people (not the defendant) present at the time the victim was shot, as well as the victim falling, required a new trial. The prosecutor had seen the video and considered it irrelevant. In her summation, the prosecutor said there was no video of the incident:

In New York, where the defense “did not specifically request the information, the test of materiality is whether there is a reasonable probability that had it been disclosed to the defense, the result would have been different'” … . Defendant concedes that the “reasonable probability” standard applies here. In determining materiality, the “question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence” … . The “defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict” … . Defendant need only show that “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” … . * * *

It requires no frame-by-frame review to grasp that the video would have become the focal point of defendant’s trial. It would have set the scene of the murder, identified other potential witnesses, served to impeach eyewitness testimony, and provided a basis for an argument that other suspects might have been involved in the shooting. Instead of playing that role at trial, the video was withheld from the defense and the jury was told it did not exist. The aggregate effect of the suppression of this evidence undermines confidence in the verdict and therefore defendant is entitled to a new trial. People v Ulett, 2019 NY Slip Op 05060, CtApp 6-26-19

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant railroad’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad employee assaulted by a passenger was properly denied. The court explained the evidentiary criteria under the FELA:

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.) provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad’s negligence. In an action under FELA, “the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability” … . However, these elements are “substantially relaxed” and “negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute’s broadly remedial intended function” … . A claim under FELA “must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing plaintiff’s injury” … . “A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee’s injury” … .

To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (id.). However, notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury … . “As with all issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury’s power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action” … .

Under the foregoing relaxed standard, there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line. Plaintiff testified that she was previously assaulted by a passenger, and that there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares, which caused her to fear for her safety. Plaintiff also testified that she has called the MTA’s rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers; another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out on the New Haven Line; a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line. Stephney v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 2019 NY Slip Op 05004, First Dept 6-20-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROBATION AND THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED A CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was not properly notified of alleged violations of probation and the proof did not support a finding that defendant violated a condition of probation:

Where a violation of probation is alleged to have occurred, a written statement must be filed with the court and provided to defendant “setting forth the condition or conditions of the sentence violated and a reasonable description of the time, place and manner in which the violation occurred” (CPL 410.70 [2] …). Here, the details of the alleged violations in the uniform court report only included the   that defendant violated condition 2, which required her to obey all state and federal laws, by engaging in conduct that led to her September 2015 and March 2016 arrests. Although a different section of the uniform court report summarizing defendant’s probation supervision referenced other incidents that County Court made findings with respect thereto, the uniform court report only alleged that defendant violated condition 2 of the terms of her probation (see CPL 410.70 [2]). Moreover, defendant’s probation officer acknowledged in her testimony that defendant was not charged in the uniform court report with violating conditions 8, 12 and 16. Notwithstanding the testimony that was allowed at the hearing with regard to conditions 8, 12 and 16, defendant was not provided with a written statement informing her that she was also being charged with violating these conditions of her probation. Accordingly, County Court’s finding that defendant violated these terms of her probation was improper (see CPL 410.70 [2]…). …

Condition 2 of the terms of defendant’s probation required her to obey all federal, state and local laws and notify her probation officer immediately if questioned or arrested by a law enforcement agency or if convicted of a new offense. In support of its allegation that defendant violated this condition, the People adduced the testimony of defendant’s probation officer who testified, in relevant part, that defendant notified her of both the September 2015 and March 2016 arrests and charges. Beyond the probation officer’s testimony that defendant had been arrested on two occasions, no additional evidence or proof was offered as to the underlying acts. Accordingly, County Court’s finding that defendant violated condition 2 of her probation was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05018, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

,

PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS REBUTTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the process server’s affidavit was rebutted by sufficient proof to warrant a hearing on whether defendant, David, was served with the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action:

A process server’s affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service” … . “Bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service” … . However, “[w]here a defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of process containing specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit, the presumption of proper service is rebutted and an evidentiary hearing is required” … .

Here, an affidavit of service, in which the process server attested to having served David with copies of the summons and complaint by personal delivery to him at his residence at the subject property in Williston Park on April 16, 2014, at 8:08 p.m., constituted prima facie evidence of proper service on David … . However, in support of the motion, David submitted an affidavit of Patricia, who attested that David suffered a brain aneurysm in April 2008 and had resided in a nursing home in Glen Cove since July 2008 and, thus, could not have been personally served at the residence on April 16, 2014. These facts were supported by documents submitted with the affidavit, including minutes of a guardianship proceeding dated June 8, 2012, wherein the court noted that David resided in a nursing home in Glen Cove. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v Silber, 2019 NY Slip Op 04907, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANT PUNCHED WAS ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE ‘HEAVIER BURDEN’ IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘LAWFUL DUTY’ PROVIDED TO THE JURY WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s assault conviction. Defendant and his brother were sitting on an elevated subway grate when they were approached by two police officers. Defendant’s brother became angry, telling one of the officers to leave him alone and yelling. Defendant restrained his brother, telling him to calm down. At some point defendant suddenly punched one of the police officers. The jury was instructed that, to find the defendant guilty of a violation of Penal Law 120.05(3), the injured police officer must have been engaged in a lawful duty at the time of the assault. The definition of “lawful duty” provided to the jury included a “heavier burden” of proof, to which the People must be held because there was no objection to the instruction. Pursuant to the law as provided to the jury, defendant’s assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

Since the People failed to register any objection to the Supreme Court’s supplemental charge, they were bound to satisfy the heavier burden of proof contained therein … , and we must weigh the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury without objection … .

The consistent testimony of the two police officers shows that they were not in the process of arresting the defendant when the assault occurred. Moreover, while the trial evidence establishes that the defendant’s brother was yelling profanities at the female officer and displaying irate behavior, neither of the officers testified that they intended at any time to arrest the defendant’s brother for any offense, or were attempting to do so at the time of the assault. Under these circumstances, and particularly in light of the highly specific supplemental charge given by the trial court on the meaning of “lawful duty,” the evidence was factually insufficient to prove that the female officer was engaged in a lawful duty, as that term was defined to the jury by the Supreme Court, at the time of the assault by the defendant … . People v Truluck, 2019 NY Slip Op 04969, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

,

THE ROBBERY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT IN A PHOTO ARRAY AFTER THE POLICE HAD SHOWN THE ROBBERY VICTIM A CELL PHONE PHOTO DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT USING A TASER ON SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, THE ROBBER HAD THREATENED THE VICTIM WITH A TASER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for one of two robberies charged in the indictment, determined the pretrial identification of the defendant by the robbery victim, Fisher, should have been suppressed. The police were given a cell phone found at the robbery scene. The robber had used a Taser in the Fisher robbery. In the cell phone was a photo of a man using a Taser on a person. Fisher told the police the man in the photo using a Taser was the man who robbed him. Fisher subsequently identified the defendant in a photo array. Even though Fisher’s in-court identification of defendant was deemed admissible, the suppression error was not harmless:

… [T]he procedure employed by the detective in showing Fisher the cell phone videos was a police-arranged identification procedure, even though the police did not arrange the content of the videos on the phone. The procedure by which Fisher viewed the videos occurred at the “deliberate direction of the State,” and not as a result of mere happenstance … . The People failed to meet their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness created by the video identification procedure. By showing Fisher the cell phone and telling him that the phone was recovered from the scene of the robbery, the detective suggested that the phone may belong to one of the perpetrators of the robbery. One of the videos portrayed an individual using a taser on someone else, which was similar to Fisher’s description of the circumstances of the robbery. Fisher identified the defendant’s photograph in a photo array only after he was shown the video. Further, contrary to the People’s contention, it cannot be said that the video did not single out or portray the individual with the taser in a negative light. The video portrayed the individual committing a violent criminal act against another person … . Accordingly, the court should have suppressed the video identification on the ground that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive. People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 04966, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THERE WAS A COMPELLING NEED FOR DISCOVERY OF ‘ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT/MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION/HIV-RELATED INFORMATION’ IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DISCOVERY REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendants request for discovery of “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information” in this slip and fall case was not supported by evidence of a compelling need:

“[A] party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the release of pertinent medical records under the liberal discovery provisions of the CPLR when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively putting his or her physical or mental condition in issue” … However, Public Health Law § 2785(1) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall issue an order for the disclosure of confidential HIV related information,” and the only exception to that prohibition that is pertinent in this case requires an application showing “a compelling need for disclosure of the information for the adjudication of a criminal or civil proceeding” (Public Health Law § 2785[2][a]).

Here, the defendants failed to proffer any showing of a compelling need for disclosure related to “HIV-Related Information.” Further, the defendants failed to submit an expert affidavit or any other evidence that would establish a connection between “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information,” and the cause of the accident, and failed to make any effort to link any such information to the plaintiff’s ability to recover from his injuries or his prognosis for future enjoyment of life … . Nesbitt v Advanced Serv. Solutions, 2019 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, ,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF MOTHER’S NEGLECT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner’s motion for summary judgment against mother on the issue of neglect should have been denied:

“[I]n an appropriate case, the Family Court may enter a finding of neglect on a summary judgment motion in lieu of holding a fact-finding hearing upon the petitioner’s prima facie showing of neglect as a matter of law and the respondent’s failure to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion” … . “Summary judgment, of course, may only be granted in any proceeding when it has been clearly ascertained that there is no triable issue of fact outstanding; issue finding, rather than issue determination, is its function” … .

Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment against the mother on the issue of neglect of the subject child, the petitioner included the evidence submitted at a hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. At that hearing, the mother, who is deaf and communicated through a sign language interpreter, gave various explanations for the scratches and other marks on the child’s skin. The mother testified that she had difficulty controlling the child, who has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, and that she accidentally scratched the child while trying to restrain him. Under these circumstances, the evidence at the hearing revealed triable issues of fact as to whether the mother neglected the child. Matter of Joseph Z. (Yola Z.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04957, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

,

MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE A FACT-FINDING OF NEGLECT WITHOUT ADMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to vacate a neglect fact-finding without admission:

… [T]he mother moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the children and imposed certain conditions upon her custody of them. The Family Court denied the mother’s motion, and the mother appeals.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061, the Family Court may, for good cause shown, set aside, modify, or vacate any order in the course of a proceeding under article 10 of the Family Court Act … . “As with an initial order, the modified order must reflect a resolution consistent with the best interests of the children after consideration of all relevant circumstances, and must be supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the mother demonstrated good cause to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the children and imposed certain conditions upon her custody of them. The mother demonstrated that she had successfully completed the court-ordered programs, that she had fully complied with the conditions of the order of disposition, and that the requested modification of the order of fact-finding and disposition was in the best interests of the children … . Matter of Emma R. (Evelyn R.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04948, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

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