You are here: / Evidence
,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the vacation of defendant's conviction by the motion court, finding that the evidence which defendant alleged had not been turned over to the defense was not Brady material:

The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree, among other crimes, in connection with the shooting death of Tracey Thomas on October 22, 1993. Thomas was shot and killed as he sat in his car outside a game room operated by the defendant, who was known as “Pike.”

The evidence at trial, which was conducted in 1998, included the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the shooter. One eyewitness to the shooting, Marilyn Connor, testified that she heard a gunshot and saw a spark coming from the defendant, who was standing in front of Thomas. Connor stated that she had seen the defendant “[o]nce or twice” before. The other eyewitness, Shawn Newton, testified that the defendant exited the game room, approached Thomas's car, and shot Thomas in the chest. Newton stated that he had known the defendant “all [his] life.” * * *

The nondisclosure of the DOCCS record reflecting Newton's apparent suicide attempt did not constitute a Brady violation, inasmuch as the information contained in that record was not favorable to the defense. As set forth in the DOCCS record, Newton, who was observed in the process of tying a bed sheet around a radiator pipe, reported that he was “stressed and [did] not want to go to court in fear of [the] safety of himself and family,” and that he “fears [the defendant].” The DOCCS record further indicated that Newton was “[a]ssured that this [would] be noted and that there should be no contact between him and enemy as well as enemy's family.” Thus, the DOCCS record attributed the apparent suicide attempt to Newton's fear of the defendant and was therefore not favorable to the defense. …

Furthermore, that the prosecutor had obtained a material witness order to secure Connor's testimony did not constitute Brady material because that information was not exculpatory … . To the contrary, the record indicates that Connor's absence was due to her fear of testifying against the defendant. …

We next turn to the nondisclosure of the Damiani orders, which are orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to which custody of an inmate, with the inmate's consent, is delivered to the police department to be interviewed by the District Attorney's Office ,,, [C]ontrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the orders did not satisfy the materiality standard. People v Spruill, 2018 NY Slip Op 06041, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRADY MATERIAL, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL,  MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although the DNA evidence presented by a criminalist was in part testimonial, it was properly admitted:

At trial, the Supreme Court admitted DNA profiles and reports, as well as the testimony of an expert in DNA analysis, pertaining to the five victims and the defendant. The expert, Craig O'Connor, testified that he had a Ph.D. in genetics and laboratory sciences, and he was a criminalist level III at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. O'Connor testified that he was not the original criminalist on all of the individual cases. The other two analysts who worked on the cases “resigned in previous years to pursue other endeavors.” With regard to the case files that he took over from the analysts who resigned, O'Connor testified that he became the custodian of the case files and, in doing so, he “was required to review them all and look at all the paperwork and the reports and everything.” Moreover, O'Connor testified that he would “take all of the results and do the analysis and interpretations,” and he “review[ed] all the facts and all the data contained in all of the files.” When the prosecutor asked O'Connor if he had “review[ed] th[e] data and draw[n] [his] own independent conclusions,” O'Connor responded, “Yes, I reviewed the results that were obtained and also the reports, yes.” * * *

Here, the DNA evidence is, at least in part, testimonial … . However, O'Connor's testimony regarding his review and analysis of all of the case files indicated that he independently analyzed the raw data, as opposed to functioning as ” a conduit for the conclusions of others'” … . Moreover, unlike in other cases, the record here demonstrates that, to the extent that O'Connor was not the original criminalist assigned to any of the individual cases, the original criminalists had resigned and, thus, were unavailable … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly admitted the DNA profiles and reports and O'Connor's testimony. People v Pascall, 2018 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO  (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION. PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff lessee's complaint in this slip and fall case against the landlord should not have been dismissed. Although defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, demonstrated it was solely plaintiff lessee's responsibility to remove ice and snow, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant was responsible for an inadequate drainage system which caused ice and snow to accumulate. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court should have considered the expert affidavit and plaintiff's and his ex-wife's affidavits stating that the ice and snow condition could not be dealt with by normal methods (due to the drainage issue):

Here, there was no statute imposing a duty on the defendants to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The defendants also demonstrated that the parties agreed that the plaintiff would be responsible for snow and ice removal and that the plaintiff actually undertook to conduct snow and ice removal. …

Even in the absence of a duty to repair an allegedly defective condition, liability may attach to an out-of-possession landlord who has affirmatively created a dangerous condition or defect … . The defendants did not dispute that they installed the drainage system.

Moreover, the defendants failed to establish that they did not have a duty to repair a defective condition in the drainage system.

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the drainage system was defective and, if so, whether such defect contributed to his accident … . The court should have considered the affidavits of the plaintiff and his former wife, in which they averred that the icy condition on the driveway could not be ameliorated by snowplowing and their daily efforts at salting, sanding, and ashing the driveway, as those averments were consistent with the plaintiff's deposition testimony… . The court also should have considered the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert, in which he stated that defective conditions in the property's drainage system made the driveway area near the entrance prone to the pooling and freezing of water from the roof and surrounding lawn areas. Contrary to the court's determination, there is no requirement that a plaintiff establish the violation of a specific statutory provision where the duty to repair a defective condition is assumed by the landlord by contract or course of conduct … . Bartels v Eack, 2018 NY Slip Op 05995, Second Dept 9-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, NEGLIGENCE, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION (SECOND DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (SLIP AND FALL, NEGLIGENCE, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION, PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED  (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP).

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Ct. of Appeals, held that the denial of a reporter’s motion to quash a subpoena for evidence of her jailhouse interview of the defendant is not appealable:

“[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (Matter of People v Juarez , _NY3d_, 2018 NY Slip Op 04684 [2018]), quoting People v Santos , 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]). As pertinent to the issue in this case, “an order determining a motion to quash a subpoena . . . issued in the course of prosecution of a criminal action, arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized” (id.; see CPL art 450). People v Juarez, 2018 NY Slip Op 05969, First Dept 9-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))

, ,

SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT).

In this Lien Law action, the Second Department determined Supreme Court improperly precluded the plaintiff from offering evidence of the value and condition of items allegedly sold or damaged by defendants, the owners/operators of a storage unit plaintiff had rented. Defendants allegedly mistakenly believed plaintiff had failed to pay the rental fees and held an auction. After plaintiff regained control of the unit, plaintiff disposed of most of the contents, despite defendants' requests to inspect the items:

Although the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff disposed of the majority of the items remaining in the storage unit after he regained control and possession of the unit, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's conduct rose to the level of being intentional or willful … . …

Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sanction is to preclude evidence of the items disposed by the plaintiff that were not available for inspection by the defendants … . Heins v Public Stor., 2018 NY Slip Op 05919, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL’S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendant board of education's motion for summary judgment in this student-on-student assault case. In addition, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer based upon spoliation of evidence (a video):

The complaint alleges that L.F., an infant, sustained injuries when he was picked up and dropped on his head by a fellow student at Mount Vernon High School. The plaintiff, suing individually and as the parent and natural guardian of L.F., commenced this action against the defendant, Mount Vernon Board of Education, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging that it failed to provide adequate supervision. * * *

… [A] video recording which captured the incident from a distance could not be located after it had been viewed by the plaintiff, the police, and school administrators. According to the Principal of Mount Vernon High School, he did not know when the video disappeared but he asserted that its disappearance was accidental and a search had been conducted to locate it. Under these circumstances, where the defendant lost the video recording after having provided it for viewing to the plaintiff and others, the plaintiff would still be able to establish her case at trial despite the absence of the video. * * *

The defendant submitted evidence that L.F. and the other student had no previous interaction and that the other student's prior disciplinary record did not include any violent act, thereby establishing that the defendant had no specific knowledge or notice of any prior conduct such that L.F.'s alleged assault … could reasonably have been anticipated … . Francis v Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 05916, Second Dept 8-29-18

NEGLIGENCE (MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL'S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SPOLIATION, MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL'S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL'S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL'S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL'S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined emails submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

The purpose of a reply affidavit or affirmation is to respond to arguments made in opposition to the movant's motion and not to introduce new arguments or grounds in support of the relief sought … . There are exceptions to this rule, including when evidence is submitted in response to allegations made for the first time in opposition, or when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers … . Neither of those exceptions applies here. The time for the defendant to produce the letters allegedly from the plaintiff transferring his interest in the shares would have been in support of her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that she is the sole owner of the shares. There was no new allegation in the plaintiff's opposition to the cross motion that would have warranted the defendant's submission of the letters in reply. Further, the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to respond by way of surreply or oral argument. An unrecorded, in-chambers discussion of the cross motion cannot be deemed an opportunity to respond, especially in light of the plaintiff's claim on appeal that the letters are forgeries. Moreover, the defendant did not plead a demand for a declaratory judgment in a counterclaim … . The defendant also did not assert a claim to sole ownership of the shares in her pleading. Gelaj v Gelaj, 2018 NY Slip Op 05917, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY, EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (REPLY, EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REPLY, EVIDENCE, MAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the questioning of defendant, without repeating the Miranda warnings, was appropriate. Defendant had not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent the night before and the questioning continued the next morning. The court noted that the admission of evidence of prior uncharged crime was not error because the evidence completed the narrative. The court further noted that defendant should have been allowed to interview a prosecution witness without the presence of a prosecutor or a detective. The error was deemed harmless however:

The defendant's morning statement was properly admitted at trial. Had the defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked her right to remain silent the previous evening, the request would have had to be scrupulously honored … , and further interrogation would have had to cease… . Under such circumstances, further inquiry can be made, but only if a significant period of time has passed and the police reiterate the requisite warnings … . However, since the defendant in this case had not unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked her right to remain silent … and remained in continuous custody in the interim, police and prosecutors were free to resume their questioning of the defendant within a reasonable time, and to do so without repeating the Miranda warnings … . The further questioning at issue here was within a reasonable time under this Court's precedent … . People v Wisdom, 2018 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/MIRANDA  (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversed defendant's convictions for reckless endangerment and reckless assault. Defendant had picked up a gun that his friend (Morales) had brought to his house. In handling the gun it went off injuring his friend's leg. His friend was asleep when the gun fired. Defendant immediately said he was sorry, put the gun in a garbage can and accompanied his friend to the hospital. The Second Department determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence because there was insufficient proof that defendant acted recklessly:

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his conduct would cause physical injury to another person. The People did not introduce evidence that the defendant was familiar with weapons, or the particular gun. Indeed, the gun was brought to the defendant's home by Morales, and it is undisputed that the gun discharged as the defendant handled it out of curiosity. There was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant knew the gun was loaded with live ammunition, or even knew how the particular gun operated. There was no evidence introduced that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk that the gun might misfire … . Indeed, Morales testified that the defendant appeared “scared” when the gun discharged and that the defendant immediately stated that he was “sorry.” The defendant attempted to dispose of the gun and helped the victim get medical care. Contrary to the People's contention, there was no testimony that the defendant was pointing the gun at Morales when it discharged, and there was no evidence introduced establishing that the only way the pellets could have struck Morales's leg was by pointing the gun directly at Morales. People v Marin, 2018 NY Slip Op 05942, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/RECKLESSNESS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion to suppress a handgun and statements should not have been granted in this street stop case. The Second Department found that the officer who stopped the defendant properly responded to an escalating situation which culminated in the defendant's flight and abandonment of a backpack containing the handgun:

There is no dispute that upon receiving a radio transmission of an anonymous tip that a man of a specific description wearing a black backpack and possessing a gun was traveling on the B6 bus toward Canarsie, the responding police officer had a common-law right of inquiry upon encountering the defendant exiting that bus and matching the description … . The responding officer testified at the suppression hearing that he approached the defendant and asked something to the effect of, “Hey, what's up, man, you know, you got a second for the police?” The defendant's eyes widened, he appeared visibly nervous, and he started to back up. The defendant then thrust his right hand in his right pants pocket and refused to comply with the officer's command to remove it. These actions by the defendant escalated the encounter to justify the officer drawing his weapon, placing it across his own chest in a “depressed position,” and attempting to forcibly remove the defendant's hand from his pocket as a self-protective measure … . Further, the defendant's subsequent flight, coupled with all of the other indicia of criminality, justified the police pursuit …  and, ultimately, the recovery of a semi-automatic handgun from the defendant's backpack, which he abandoned in a nearby bodega … . People v King, 2018 NY Slip Op 05941, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

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