You are here: / Evidence
,

911 CALL PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR EXCITED UTTERANCE, DEFENDANT PROPERLY GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR WOUNDING ONE VICTIM WITH THE INTENT TO SHOOT ANOTHER VICTIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a 911 recording was properly admitted under the present-sense-impression and excited-utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule and defendant was properly sentenced to consecutive sentences where, intending to shoot one victim, another victim was also hit:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination allowing the admission of a recording of a call to the 911 emergency number made by the father of the then-15-year-old victim. The record established that the declarant made the call within seconds of the shooting after his son cried out that he had been shot, and the father saw his neighbor, who was also shot and who the father thought was dying, fall to the ground in a pool of blood. Although the declarant’s statements to the 911 operator were hearsay, they were nevertheless admissible under the exception for excited utterances ” made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event'” … or present sense impressions made while he was “perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward” which are “corroborated by independent evidence establishing [their] reliability” … . …

… [T]he defendant fired multiple shots with the intent of hitting the older victim and one of those shots hit the 15-year-old victim. However, “[t]he test is not whether the criminal intent is one and the same and inspiring the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent” … . The shots which hit the two victims “were the result of separate and distinct acts of pulling a trigger to discharge a firearm” and “repetitive discrete acts, such as successive shots . . . [do not] somehow merge such that they lose their individual character where the same criminal intent . . . inspir[es] the whole transaction” … . Accordingly, the imposition of consecutive sentences for the two counts of attempted murder in the second degree was legal. People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 02911, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, , ,

MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MADE DURING JURY SELECTION WAS PREMATURE, GRANTING THE MOTION ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer on spoliation grounds in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action, made during jury selection, should not have been granted. It was not a proper motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 and the ruling violated the law of the case:

During jury selection, the plaintiff made an oral application, in effect, to strike the defendant’s answer and for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability based on the defendant’s alleged spoliation of evidence relating to certain telemetry strips and the defendant’s failure to perform an autopsy on the decedent. In opposition, the defendant argued, among other things, that the Supreme Court had previously denied that branch of a prior motion by the plaintiff which was to strike the defendant’s answer based on the defendant’s alleged spoliation of evidence. …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the plaintiff’s oral application, which was made during jury selection, was not based on any admissions by the defendant, and the Supreme Court should not have considered the merits of the plaintiff’s application at that juncture … .

“The doctrine of the law of the case’ is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” … . The doctrine forecloses reexamination of an issue previously determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction “absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or a change in the law” … .

Here, the Supreme Court violated the doctrine of law of the case by disregarding the prior order denying that branch of the plaintiff’s earlier motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer based upon the same evidentiary issues … . Fishon v Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 02682. Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO DEFENDANT’S HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION DATA INCLUDED AN EXPRESS FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND WAS THEREFORE THE EQUIVALENT OF A WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the court order authorizing access to defendant’s historical cell site location data in this murder case was the equivalent of a warrant because it included an express finding of probable cause:

The defendant’s contention that his historical cell site location information should have been suppressed as it was purportedly obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under Carpenter v United States (__ US __, 138 S Ct 2206 [2018]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, the court order authorizing the acquisition of the records made an express finding of probable cause, which was supported by the People’s evidentiary showing … . Accordingly, the order “was effectively a warrant” which complied with the requirement of Carpenter … . People v Clark, 2019 NY Slip Op 02719, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT EXPLAINED OR WERE WRONGLY EXPLAINED, THE WAIVER WAS INVALID, THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION BY THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT A LEVEL ONE DE BOUR INQUIRY, THE SWITCHBLADE DEFENDANT THREW AWAY WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined (1) defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the nature and consequences of the waiver were either not explained or were wrongly explained, and (2) the police officer’s (Conaghan’s) initial communication with defendant when the officer was sitting in a moving police vehicle was not a level one De Bour inquiry. Therefore the switchblade defendant threw away upon the officer’s communication was properly admitted in evidence:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the comment, “fellas, how you doing tonight,” constituted a greeting and not a level-one De Bour inquiry … . Conaghan testified at the suppression hearing that, when he asked the defendant and the two other males how they were doing, the window to the vehicle was already rolled down and his partner did not stop the vehicle. He also testified that he often greeted people on the street in this manner. Moreover, the credibility determinations of a court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record … . A review of the record supports the court’s finding that Conaghan’s testimony was credible.

Since there was no impermissible request for information by Conaghan, the defendant’s “unprovoked and wholly voluntary” act of throwing the switchblade was not in direct and immediate response to any illegal actions by the police … . The recovery of the switchblade was not tainted by any illegality, because no illegal inquiry occurred … . People v Birch, 2019 NY Slip Op 02716, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the “presumption of receipt” with respect to a letter alleged to have been sent to the defendant requesting that surveillance video from 6 hours before to 2 hours after plaintiff’s slip and fall be preserved. Only a two-minute clip showing plaintiff’s fall had been preserved and Supreme Court had precluded the defendant from presenting video evidence as a sanction for spoliation pursuant to CPLR 3126:

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that the defendant failed to preserve all of the surveillance video footage taken on the date of the accident after the defendant was placed on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation … . The letter dated February 23, 2016, which was submitted for the first time with the plaintiff’s reply papers, may be considered, since the defendant had an opportunity to respond and submit papers in surreply … . However, the defendant denied receiving this letter and we reject the plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to the presumption of receipt. The mere assertion in the reply affirmation of the plaintiff’s attorney that the letter dated February 23, 2016, was “sent” to the defendant, unsupported by someone with personal knowledge of the mailing of the letter or proof of standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that the letter was properly addressed and mailed, was insufficient to give rise to the presumption of receipt that attaches to letters duly addressed and mailed … . Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02737, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED A BAG ON THE FLOOR NEAR HIM, THE KNIFE IN THE BAG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO TRIAL WITHOUT A COMPETENCY EXAM ORDERED BY ANOTHER JUDGE AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the warrantless search of a bag next to defendant was not justified as a search of the “grabbable” area because defendant was handcuffed. Admitting the knife in evidence was harmless error, however. Another judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 competency exam, but, after the defendant refused to be examined, the trial judge properly commenced the trial without the ordered examination. The defendant had a long history of psychiatric problems, but the most recent exam deemed him competent:

In the circumstances presented, the court did not err when it determined that defendant’s trial would commence notwithstanding that a different judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 examination, which had not yet been conducted because the defendant refused to be examined … . The court acted within its discretion to decline to repeatedly issue force orders to compel defendant’s submission to the extant competency examination order. Furthermore, the court considered the long history of examinations in this case and its own observations of defendant over its prolonged history. We find nothing in People v Armlin (37 NY2d 167 [1975]) that prohibits a court from considering changed or extraordinary circumstances in denying a previously granted examination, particularly given defendant’s profound lack of cooperation and a recent examination finding him competent.

We find that the trial court should have suppressed the 12 inch knife recovered by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s bag. Although at the time of the search the bag was on the floor within the “grabbable area” next to defendant, he was standing with his arms handcuffed behind his back … . These circumstances do not support a reasonable belief that the defendant could have either gained possession of a weapon or destroyed evidence located in the bag. Police did not show any exigency to justify the warrantless search of the bag … . People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 02610, First Dept 4-4-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STORM, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant demonstrated there was a storm in progress in this slip and fall case, there was a question of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm:

Under the storm in progress rule, a property owner will not be held liable in negligence for accidents occurring as a result of a slippery snow or ice condition “occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Here, in support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the affidavit and report of a meteorologist with attached certified climatological data, which demonstrated that, at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, a wintery mix of freezing rain, sleet, and rain was falling and the temperature may have been at or below freezing. Accordingly, the defendant established, prima facie, that a storm was ongoing at the time of the plaintiff’s fall … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, via her General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony, her deposition testimony, and the affidavit of her brother, as to whether the icy condition that caused her fall existed prior to the storm in progress and whether the defendant had constructive notice of the hazard … . Isabel v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02506, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the records submitted by the bank (Deutsche Bank) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, in support of its motion, Deutsche Bank submitted the mortgage, the note, and the affidavit of Nicholas Collins, a vice president of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), Deutsche Bank’s loan servicer, in which Collins averred, inter alia, that the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payments due under the note and mortgage after January 1, 2008. The plaintiff also submitted a limited power of attorney dated June 7, 2012, which demonstrated that Ocwen was authorized to act on Deutsche Bank’s behalf. However, Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Collins, including those relating to the defendant’s alleged default, were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, since Collins, who was employed by Ocwen, did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Thus, Collins failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the records on which he relied, including the records concerning the defendant’s payment history, and therefore, his assertions based on those records were inadmissible … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Blount, 2019 NY Slip Op 02500, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the sand and debris in a walkway in this slip and fall case. Therefore their motions for summary judgment were properly denied:

 “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . [Defendant’s] submissions in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, a lack of constructive notice. The affidavit of its association president merely referenced his general inspection practices and failed to indicate when the area of the walkway where the alleged slip and fall occurred was last inspected or cleaned relative to the accident … . Butts v SJF, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02491, Second Dept 4-3-19

, ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

… [T]he landlord met her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition transcript which demonstrated, prima facie, that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The plaintiff’s theory that she slipped on water dripping from the ceiling was speculative in light of, inter alia, her deposition testimony that she “personally didn’t see any water dripping, but there must have been a drip from the ceiling because the ground was wet.” Moreover, [third-party defendant] testified at his deposition that, although there had been a prior water leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen, that leak was not near the location of the plaintiff’s accident. Bilska v Truszkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

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