You are here: / Evidence
,

THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE RELATED IDENTIFICATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the burglary conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined the identification procedure, using an arrest photograph of the defendant, was unduly suggestive and the related identifications should have been suppressed:

Although the complainant’s identification of a Facebook photograph was not the product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from a single arrest photograph were the result of unduly suggestive identification procedures, and those identifications should have been suppressed … . Thus, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the count of burglary in the second degree, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source exists for the complainant’s identification of the defendant … . People v Wheeler, 2025 NY Slip Op 03747, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from an arrest photograph should have been suppressed. The procedure was unduly suggestive.​

 

,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate the defect which cause plaintiff’s fall was trivial as a matter of law. Plaintiff tripped over the raised edge of a cellar door in a sidewalk:

Defendant Teng Dragon, as the party seeking dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial, “must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . While it is true that “there is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … , producing measurements of the defect together with evidence of the surrounding circumstances is required for a prima facie showing that the defect was trivial as a matter of law … . Photographs produced by the plaintiff appear to show a non-trivial defect in the raised cellar door, and the testimony of defendant Mazal Ubracha 101 LLC’s principal indicates a surface differential between the sidewalk and cellar door of approximately one inch. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that summary judgment should not be granted in a case in which “the dimensions of the alleged defect are unknown and the photographs and descriptions inconclusive” … . Teng Dragon has not provided the actual measurements of the defect here, and thus, making every favorable inference in favor of the nonmovant plaintiff, has failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . Weatherspoon v Mazal Ubracha 101 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03662, First Dept 6-17-25

Practice Point: Here the defendant did not submit actual measurements of the defect over which plaintiff slipped and fell. Despite photographs of the defect and testimony it was one-inch in height, defendant did not prove the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN A CEILING TILE DROPPED, THE LADDER WIGGLED, AND PLAINTIFF FELL; PLANTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. It was enough to demonstrate the A-frame ladder wiggled when a ceiling tile dropped unexpectedly and there was nothing for plaintiff to grab on to:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his deposition testimony which showed that the A-frame ladder he was using to perform overhead ceiling-wiring work proved inadequate as a safety device … . Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that “‘[i]t is irrelevant that plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be in good order before using it, as [a] plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim'” … . Plaintiff testified that he was using both hands to perform the overhead ceiling work, when he was suddenly “jolted” by an unexpected drop of a ceiling tile that he was handling, resulting in a “wiggle” in the ladder, which preceded his loss of balance and eventual fall, as there was nothing available for plaintiff to grab onto to brace himself against a fall.

Defendants fail to raise an issue of fact. Contrary to their contention, plaintiff’s fall from the ladder was “directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” or an unexplained loss of balance … . To the extent defendants argue that the ladder did not fall until plaintiff first lost his balance, such argument does not, based on the facts here, show that the ladder was an adequate safety device for plaintiff’s task (… [It is “no moment whether the ladder shook prior to plaintiff’s fall, or as defendants maintain, after plaintiff lost his balance and grabbed the top of it to steady himself. In either event, the ladder was an inadequate safety device”]). Daniello v J.T. Magen & Co. Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 03649, First Dept 6-17-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when a ceiling tile dropped, the ladder wiggled, and plaintiff fell because there was nothing for him to grab on to. That is enough for summary judgment on the ground the ladder was not an adequate safety device. There is no need to demonstrate the ladder was defective.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because a proper foundation for the admissibility of the records relied upon by the referee was not provided by the accompanying affidavit:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan, the referee relied upon the affidavit of Frank Rosas, a vice president of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the servicer of the mortgage loan. Rosas stated in his affidavit that Nationstar’s records pertaining to the mortgage loan included records of PHH Mortgage, a prior servicer. However, Rosas did not state when Nationstar began servicing the loan, did not state that “[he] was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” of PHH Mortgage … , and did not “establish that the records provided by [PHH Mortgage] were incorporated into [Nationstar’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Nationstar] in its own business” … . Thus, Rosas’s affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Coxall, 2025 NY Slip Op 03557, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: An affiant’s failure to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records in a foreclosure action results in reversal.

 

,

ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, vacating his plea, and granting part of the suppression motion, over a partial dissent, determined that all the statements defendant made after he responded “No sir” when asked if he was willing to answer questions should have been suppressed. The dissent argued statements made before defendant was read his Miranda rights should also be suppressed:

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his post-Miranda statements inasmuch as they were made after he invoked his right to remain silent by answering “No, sir” when asked if he would be willing to answer questions after being advised of his Miranda rights. We agree. ” ‘[I]n order to terminate questioning, the assertion by a defendant of [the] right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unqualified’ ” … . Whether a defendant’s “request was ‘unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant’ ” … . Here, we conclude that defendant clearly communicated a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely when he responded “No, sir” to the verbal and written inquiries about whether he was willing to answer questions … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress the holding cell statements, which were also made after defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly asserted his right to remain silent. Contrary to the People’s assertion that the statements were made spontaneously at a time when the detective was seeking “pedigree information,” we conclude that the People did not establish that the detective’s questions “were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” rather than “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” … . People v Sullivan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is asked whether he is willing to answer questions and answers “no,” any subsequent statements must be suppressed.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS GIRLFRIEND’S APARTMENT WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS AND PRAPHERNALIA WAS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s bench-trial conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia, determined the finding that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia located in his girlfriend’s apartment was against the weight of the evidence. Note that the Fourth Department concluded there was legally sufficient evidence of constructive possession:

… “[W]here there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the People are required to establish that the defendant exercised dominion or control over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found” … . The People may establish such constructive possession by circumstantial evidence … , “but a defendant’s mere presence in the area in which the contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession” … .

Here, while the People adduced evidence establishing that defendant had a key to the apartment and stayed there “from time to time,” defendant was not a party to the lease and a search of the premises did not reveal anything to “specifically connect[ ] defendant to the places where the contraband was ultimately found” … . Moreover, none of the contraband was in plain view … and, thus, no statutory presumption of defendant’s knowing possession applied … .

We conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion or control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 03454, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of when evidence is legally sufficient to withstand a motion for a trial order of dismissal but a finding based on that same evidence is deemed “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; MONTHS LATER THE PEOPLE INDICTED THE DEFENDANT ON A MURDER CHARGE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S CPL 40.40 MOTION TO DISMISS THE MURDER INDICTMENT; THERE WAS A STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the murder indictment (CPL 40.40(2)), determined that the criminal possession of a weapon charges to which defendant pled guilty were not a barrier to a subsequent murder charge based on the same underlying facts. There was a comprehensive dissent:

… [O]n or about November 20, 2021, the 90-year-old victim was shot and killed in her home. When police officers arrived at the scene, defendant, the victim’s granddaughter, was found in the house and appeared to be in distress. Defendant gave the officers conflicting accounts of what had happened to her grandmother but consistently stated that there were guns in the house that defendant had been playing with. A pistol and a revolver were recovered from the home. The People presented evidence to a grand jury relating to the two firearms. The evidence included witness testimony from various police officers about the crime scene, including that the victim appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and about statements made to them by defendant. Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b [1]), and she pleaded guilty to both counts. * * *

“CPL 40.40 prohibits a separate prosecution of joinable offenses that arise out of the same transaction and involve different and distinct elements under circumstances wherein no violation of the double jeopardy principle can validly be maintained but the equities nevertheless seem to preclude separate prosecutions” … . Under CPL 40.40 (1), “[w]here two or more offenses are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction, . . . such person may not, under circumstances prescribed in this section, be separately prosecuted for such offenses.” A “criminal transaction” is defined as “conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). “When (a) one of two or more joinable offenses [that are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction] is charged in an accusatory instrument, and (b) another is not charged therein, or in any other accusatory instrument filed in the same court, despite possession by the [P]eople of evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction of the defendant for such uncharged offense, and (c) either a trial of the existing accusatory instrument is commenced or the action thereon is disposed of by a plea of guilty, any subsequent prosecution for the uncharged offense is thereby barred” (CPL 40.40 [2] …). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the conduct related to possession of the firearms and that related to the murder involved separate and distinct criminal acts that were not part of the same criminal transaction … . Thus, the murder count was properly charged on a separate accusatory instrument and the People did not violate CPL 40.40.

From the dissent:

… [P]rosecution of the murder charge is barred by CPL 40.40 (2) because it is joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (a) with the criminal possession of a firearm offenses charged in the prior indictment, and the People possessed legally sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction against defendant when she pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses. Where, as here, “the evidence against a person is in the prosecutor’s hands, [they] may not—as a player in a game of chance—deal out indictments one at a time” … . People v Harris, 2025 NY Slip Op 03419, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and was subsequently indicted for murder based on the same facts. The majority upheld the denial of the CPL 40.40(2) motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding the possession-of-a-weapon and murder charges were not part of the same criminal transaction. There was a strong dissent.

 

,

“NO TRESPASSING” AND “PRIVATE PROPERTY” SIGNS WERE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY WHERE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS PARKED; THEREFORE THE DEPUTY WHO WALKED UP THE DRIVEWAY TO EXAMINE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE CONDUCTED AN ILLEGAL, WARRANTLESS SEARCH; THE VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO SUBSEQUENT SEARCH WARRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A FATAL ACCIDENT AND THE DRIVER HAD FLED THE SCENE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and granting the motion to dismiss, determined the posted “No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signs created “a reasonable expectation of privacy” for the driveway of the property where defendant’s vehicle was parked. Therefore, the deputy who walked up the driveway to examine the defendant’s vehicle conducted an illegal search. The vehicle, which had stuck and killed one bicyclist and seriously injured another, as well as the defendant’s statements and evidence seized pursuant to subsequent search warrants, should have been suppressed:

… [T]wo bicyclists were struck by a motor vehicle … . One bicyclist died, and the other was severely injured. The driver fled the scene. After speaking with witnesses and collecting physical evidence from the roadway, the police determined that the involved vehicle was a gray Jeep Cherokee. At some point thereafter, a sheriff’s deputy discovered a vehicle matching this description parked in the driveway on property where defendant resided as a tenant. Because the front of the vehicle was not visible from the street, the deputy walked up the driveway in order to perform a closer inspection. Alongside the driveway were posted signs stating, “No Trespassing” and “Private Property.” The deputy observed blood on, and front-end damage to, the vehicle, consistent with the crash, and radioed his findings to his fellow law enforcement officers. In response, a sheriff’s investigator traveled to the residence. After conferring with the deputy, the investigator talked to the owner of the property and obtained surveillance footage. The investigator then spoke to defendant and secured her consent to search the vehicle. Defendant was taken to a hospital for a blood test and to the State Police barracks for a further interview. The investigator later applied for and obtained two search warrants, one for the vehicle and the other for defendant’s cell phone records. * * *

“Warrantless searches and seizures within the privacy of the home are presumptively unreasonable, subject only to carefully circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement” … . That said, a person will not necessarily be entitled to the same protection in a private driveway leading to a home unless he or she has exhibited “some outward manifestation” of a reasonable expectation of privacy in this area … . In that regard, New York law recognizes that the posting of a “No Trespassing” sign on private property constitutes such a manifestation … . Therefore, a police officer seeking to conduct a search on posted property may only do so with a warrant or while operating under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement … . People v Suprunchik, 2025 NY Slip Op 03364, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: The posting of “No Trespassing” of “Private Property” signs on the curtilage of a residence manifests a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage and triggers the need for a warrant before entering the curtilage. Here the deputy walked up the driveway to inspect a vehicle which the deputy suspected had been involved in a fatal accident. The deputy saw blood on the front of the vehicle. That was an illegal warrantless search requiring suppression of the vehicle, statements made by the defendant, and evidence seized pursuant to subsequent search warrants.

 

,

MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND, WHO LIVED WITH MOTHER AND DAUGHTER FOR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE ABUSING THE DAUGHTER, MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD” AND WAS THEREFORE A PROPER PARTY IN THIS ABUSE/NEGLECT PROCEEDING; COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Family Court’s abuse finding against mother’s live-in boyfriend, Robert, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined Roberto met the criteria for “a person legally responsible” for the child, B.F. B.F. alleged Roberto touched her inner thigh and vagina. Both the majority and the dissenters go through the criteria for “a person legally responsible for the child” in great detail:

Family Court conducted a fact-finding hearing over several days. B.F. testified that Roberto lived with her and her mother for approximately five months. She stated that during the time they lived together, she and Roberto would “always talk to each other” and grew “very close.” * * *

B.F.’s mother testified that Roberto moved in a week after they started dating. Roberto came home around 6:00 p.m. and left around 7:00 a.m. for work. Roberto contributed $100 every week for rent, bills, and home expenses. * * *

The court credited the testimony of B.F. and her mother, which established that Roberto resided in the home for five months prior to the abuse.

The determination of whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a “fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case” … . Factors to consider include “(1) ‘the frequency and nature of the contact,’ (2) ‘the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment,’ (3) ‘the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child,’ and (4) ‘the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … . These factors “are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely illustrate some of the salient considerations in making an appropriate determination” … . The weight given to each factor depends on the facts and circumstances of the case … . Matter of B.F. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 03393, First Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an exhaustive discussion of the criteria for a “person legally responsible for the child” in the context of a neglect or abuse proceeding. Here mother’s boyfriend, who lived with mother and daughter for five months prior to the abuse of the daughter, was deemed to meet the criteria.

 

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