You are here: / Evidence
,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the elevator maintenance company in this (allegedly)”misaligned elevator” slip and fall case. The maintenance company demonstrated it did not have notice of the condition and plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found”… . Here, the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of a misleveling condition, and that it did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition about which it should have been aware … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert, which was speculative, lacking in foundation, and conclusory, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … .

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the accident “was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence” … . Daconta v Otis El. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06716, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATORS (SLIP AND FALL, ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR  (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court's neglect finding in the interest of justice, in part because the finding relied on the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of the child:

… [T]he court determined that the mother neglected the children by forgetting to feed them, but the only evidence of such a danger is the uncorroborated out-of-court statement of one of the children. The mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in relying on that child's uncorroborated statement … . Nevertheless, we exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Although “[i]t is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child . . . where . . . the statements are corroborated” … , “repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate the child's prior account of [neglect]” … . Here, there was no corroboration of the one child's out-of-court statement, and thus the court erred in relying upon it to conclude that neglect occurred.

The court's further determination that the mother stopped taking her medication, and “that without . . . psychotropic medication [the] mother's mental health could rapidly deteriorate and she would endanger the safety and well-being of the children,” is belied by the testimony of the mother's counselor, the only witness who testified on that issue. The mother's counselor testified that the mother had been properly weaned off of those medications because they were impeding her functionality, and that the mother's ability to parent the children had increased after she successfully stopped taking those medications. Matter of Chance C. (Jennifer S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06642, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, HEARSAY, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (FAMILY LAW, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 should have been granted. Plaintiff met her burden by submitting the notes and guarantees and an affidavit of nonpayment. The evidence submitted by the defendants was deemed conclusory and designed to create a feigned question of fact:

Plaintiff met her initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting the notes and guarantees, together with an affidavit of nonpayment” … . In opposition, defendants failed ” to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue [of fact] with respect to a bona fide defense' ” … . Defendants contend that they are entitled to an offset because plaintiff allegedly breached a related stock purchase agreement and, following the execution of the stock purchase agreement, coerced them into paying additional funds to which plaintiff was not entitled through economic duress. The evidence submitted by defendants in support of those contentions, however, is conclusory, unsubstantiated, and internally inconsistent in a manner that appears “designed to raise feigned factual issues in an effort to avoid the consequences” of plaintiff's otherwise valid motion for summary judgment on her claim to recover on the promissory notes and guarantees … . Among other things, the affidavit of defendants' expert public accountant is “speculative and conclusory inasmuch as the expert failed to submit the data upon which he based his opinions. The affidavit thus lacks an adequate factual foundation and is of no probative value” . Finally, in addition to failing to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to economic duress, defendants waived any such claim “in light of the inordinate length of time which passed between the alleged duress and the assertion of the claim” … . Birjukow v Niagara Coating Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06637, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT)).CPLR 3213  (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a drug-related neglect finding:

We agree with respondents that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “that [the children's] physical, mental or emotional condition[s have] been impaired or [are] in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (… see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Although the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that respondents used illicit drugs, the mere use of illicit drugs is insufficient to support a finding of neglect … , and we conclude that petitioner failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between respondents' illicit drug use and the alleged impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Petitioner produced no evidence that respondents ever used drugs in the presence of the children … . Moreover, although the younger child suffered two accidents, each of which resulted in a fractured wrist, petitioner offered no evidence that respondents were using drugs or under the influence of drugs at the time the accidents occurred, respondents' innocent explanations for the accidents were uncontroverted at the fact-finding hearing, and there was no evidence of any impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the older child arising from respondents' alleged drug use. We further conclude that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of neglect by submitting evidence that respondents used drugs “to the extent that [such use] has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” (§ 1046 [a] [iii]). Absent from the record was any evidence as to the duration or frequency of respondents' drug use … . Matter of Delanie S. (Jeremy S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06677, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a drug-related neglect finding against father:

We agree with the father that the court's finding of neglect is not supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see generally Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). “[P]roof that a person repeatedly misuses . . . drugs . . . to the extent that it has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality, shall be prima facie evidence that a child of or who is the legal responsibility of such person is a neglected child except that such drug . . . misuse shall not be prima facie evidence of neglect when such person is voluntarily and regularly participating in a recognized rehabilitative program” … . Here, petitioner submitted evidence that the father tested positive for THC, oxycodone, and opioids on one occasion, which is insufficient to establish that the father repeatedly misused drugs … . The father's admission to using marihuana was also insufficient to meet petitioner's burden without further evidence as to the “duration, frequency, or repetitiveness of his drug use, or whether [the father] was ever under the influence of drugs while in the presence of the subject child” … . Matter of Bentley C. (Zachary D.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06667, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court should not have ruled on mother's petition to modify custody without holding a hearing. In addition the First Department noted that Family Court improperly relied solely upon the child's wishes and unsworn documentary evidence:

Family Court improperly determined the mother's modification petition and the father's petitions for enforcement, parenting time modification, and sole custody by suspending all contact between the father and child without a hearing … . Modification of custody or visitation, even on a temporary basis, requires a hearing, except in cases of emergency … . We have held that a hearing may be “as abbreviated, in the court's broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant” … . However, here, the court granted the drastic remedy of suspension of all contact between parent and child based solely upon its in camera interview with the child and its review of the motion papers and some portion of the court file, which included an unsworn and uncertified report by Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) and unsworn letters from the child's treating therapist and from therapists who had seen the parties and child for family therapy … . Matter of Kenneth J. v Lesley B., 2018 NY Slip Op 06625, First Dept 10-4-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))

,

NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof did not support a finding that either parent had neglected the child. Apparently mother's boyfriend had spanked the child and bruising appeared over time. Mother had no reason to suspect her boyfriend would mistreat the child and the parents could not be faulted for not recognizing the significance of the bruising:

… [T]here was no evidence that the mother had any prior knowledge of the boyfriend's alleged propensity to mistreat the children, and there was no evidence that he had done so on any prior occasion. In fact, Sophia's medical records did not contain any indication of prior neglect, maltreatment, or abuse of any kind. As the DCFS's  [Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Service's] own expert testified at the hearing, “[Sophia] was a healthy little girl and this seemed to have happened out of the blue.” Under these circumstances, the mother did not neglect the children by leaving them in the boyfriend's care … .

Likewise, the mother's failure to recognize the significance of the pattern of bruising—which the medical expert conceded would not be apparent to a layperson—cannot be faulted. Moreover, the record supports both parents' position that the decision to wait until Tuesday morning to bring Sophia to the hospital was an acceptable course of action in light of all the surrounding circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]…) Indeed, the medical evidence showed that no treatment was required for the bruising, and that both parents had promptly sought treatment for the unrelated ankle injury.

As for the father, the undisputed evidence showed that the bruising occurred before Sophia was brought to the father's residence for a weekend visit. Further, the evidence established that it was the mother—not the father—who had left the children in the boyfriend's care. When the father took custody of Sophia on Saturday, she did not appear to be in pain, and after monitoring her throughout the weekend, the father, in consultation with the mother, agreed that Sophia should be seen by her pediatrician on Monday. Matter of Alana H. (Caitlin M.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06534, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined questions of fact raised by the police reported precluded summary judgment in plaintiff's favor in this rear-end collision case. Although the police report included inadmissible statements, plaintiff waived any objections by submitting the report with the motion papers:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that he gradually brought his vehicle to a stop for a red traffic light and that his vehicle was stopped for approximately three to five seconds when it was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle. The plaintiff also submitted, however, an uncertified copy of a police accident report, which stated that according to the defendant driver, the plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop even though the traffic light was green. Although the police report contained self-serving statements not in admissible form, the plaintiff waived any objection to the admissibility of the report by submitting it in support of his motion … . Under the circumstances, triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for striking the plaintiff's vehicle in the rear … . Grant v Carrasco, 2018 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 10-3-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion to set aside his conviction was properly denied. The defendant argued that the complainant's version of events as stated in the presentence report was newly discovered evidence because it differed from the complainant's trial testimony. The court held that the unsworn presentence report did not meet the statutory requirements for a motion to set aside a conviction:

The “power to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is of statutory origin and strict compliance with the statute is necessary” … . In support of the defendant's motion, he submitted his attorney's affirmation, to which the attorney attached a copy of the presentence report. However, the presentence report did not satisfy the requirement that the defendant submit sworn allegations in support of his motion (see CPL 330.40[2][a]).

A presentence report does not contain sworn allegations. Indeed, probation officers are directed, in preparing their report, to include “an analysis of as much of the information gathered in the investigation as the agency that conducted the investigation deems relevant to the question of sentence” (CPL 390.30[3][a]). It is not mandated, nor expected, that a presentence report include a verbatim account of the complainant's words. Indeed, some presentence reports do not contain victim impact statements. The presentence report is not sworn to by the probation officer who prepares the report. Accordingly, while a presentence report is deemed generally reliable for sentencing purposes, its information “need not always be credited” and at best constitutes “reliable hearsay” … .

Since the “moving papers [did] not contain sworn allegations of all facts essential to support the motion,” the Supreme Court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers and, thus, did not err in failing to hold a hearing … . People v Windsor, 2018 NY Slip Op 06576, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed on a lesser included offense, evidence of defendant's pretrial silence should not have been admitted, and there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutorial misconduct issues were not preserved, but the issues were reviewed in the interest of justice. The prosecutorial misconduct alone justified reversal:

… [C]riminally negligent homicide, in addition to manslaughter in the second degree, is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree … , and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, should have been charged. Had the jury credited the defendant's account of the incident, it reasonably could have concluded that the defendant did not intend to cause serious physical injury and that he failed to perceive that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur … . …

… [T]the defendant correctly contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to question him about his post-arrest silence, because, although the defendant initially responded to certain questions asked by the police, he effectively invoked his right to remain silent and offered no information regarding the essential facts of his involvement in the crime … . …

The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to the prosecutor's improper comments during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2]). However, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . The prosecutor engaged in misconduct throughout his summation, inter alia, by continuously referring to the defendant as a liar, misstating evidence, denigrating the defense, shifting the burden of proof, attempting to arouse the sympathies of the jurors, and vouching for his witnesses' credibility … . The cumulative effect of the prosecutor's improper comments deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Flores, 2018 NY Slip Op 06557, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (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