You are here: / Evidence
,

THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurring opinion and a two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate her conviction (by guilty plea) on actual innocence grounds should not have been granted. Actual innocence, the court held, is not a ground for relief in this context. Defendant was a nurse who pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a disabled person. Defendant had given the severely disabled child a bath and the child apparently sustained third degree burns. In support of her motion to vacate, the defendant presented expert evidence, including biopsy testing, that the apparent burns were the result of an allergic reaction (TEN/SJS). Defendant had been sued civilly and won, despite being precluded from contesting liability:

​The evidence at issue here was not newly discovered. The information regarding TEN/SJS and the existence of the biopsy testing were a part of the victim’s medical records, and the possibility of obtaining a medical expert on behalf of defendant had been discussed with defense counsel before the guilty plea was entered. Since the evidence put forth in support of defendant’s actual innocence claim was discoverable before the guilty plea had her attorney pursued that course of investigation, defendant’s challenge to her conviction falls squarely within CPL 440.10 (1) (h) … .

Moreover, although defendant provided the biopsy results and an expert affidavit to support the conclusion that she was innocent of scalding the victim with hot water, that evidence only raises some doubt as to her guilt by setting up a battle of experts. It does not establish her factual innocence — particularly in light of the significant barrier presented by her inculpatory statements and guilty plea. …

Permitting a collateral attack on a guilty plea based on a claim of new evidence that contradicts the solemn admission of guilt entered during the course of a judicial proceeding free of constitutional error would have enormous ramifications to the efficacy of our criminal justice system. The legislature has not sanctioned such claims in CPL 440.10 with the exception of the production of DNA evidence demonstrating the identity of the actual assailant, and even that narrow exception has legislatively imposed procedural limitations … . Defendant nonetheless asks us to judicially create this extraordinary path for a defendant who has pleaded guilty. We decline to do so. …

… [W]here the defendant has been convicted by guilty plea, there is no actual innocence claim cognizable under CPL 440.10 (1) (h). People v Tiger, 2018 NY Slip Op 04377, CtApp 6-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/GUILTY PLEA (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))

, ,

PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because the proof of mailing of the required notice did not meet the requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. “[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the “affidavit of mailing” of a vice president for loan documentation of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the loan servicer did not provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . US Bank N.A. v Sims, 2018 NY Slip Op 04374, Second Dept 6-13-18

​FORECLOSURE (NOTICE, PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, MAILING, NOTICE, PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MAILING (FORECLOSURE,  PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refuse to admit a surveillance video because it was not properly authenticated:

“Testimony from [a] videographer that he [or she] took the video, that it correctly reflects what he [or she] saw, and that it has not been altered or edited is normally sufficient to authenticate a videotape” … . Where the videographer is not called as a witness, the video can still be authenticated with testimony that the video “truly and accurately represents what was before the camera”… . Furthermore, “[e]vidence establishing the chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering” … . Here, given the inability of the witness to testify regarding the editing of the master recording and the accuracy of the video excerpt, and his lack of personal knowledge as to the creation of the proffered disc and how it came into the possession of the plaintiff’s attorneys, we agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to properly authenticate the video excerpt … . Torres v Hickman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04372, Second Dept 6-13-18

​EVIDENCE (VIDEO, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/AUTHENTICATION (EVIDENCE, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (EVIDENCE, AUTHENTICATION, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/AUTHENTICATION (EVIDENCE, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. And plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse or negative inference jury instruction based on the school district’s destruction of video surveillance evidence was properly granted. Infant plaintiff, a fifth grader, fell from the top of a set of monkey bars while attempting a dangerous cartwheel to a handstand. Apparently he successfully did the stunt just before and fell on his second attempt. The school was aware that infant plaintiff needed some extra supervision because of his past actions. The school preserved only the video of the failed second attempt of the stunt and nothing prior:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff’s alleged prior conduct and his reputation warranted more appropriate supervision, or heightened supervision, and, if so, whether such supervision would have prevented the accident … . The evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not establish, prima facie, that the accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it… . Additionally, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not an applicable defense to the facts herein … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant had an obligation to preserve surveillance footage of the moments leading up to the infant plaintiff’s accident at the time of its destruction, but negligently failed to do so. Given the nature of the infant plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the cause of the accident by the defendant’s employees, the defendant was clearly on notice of possible litigation and, thus, under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation … . The defendant failed to meet this obligation. The defendant acted negligently in unilaterally deciding to preserve only 24 seconds of footage and passively permitting the destruction of the remaining footage, portions of which were undisputedly relevant to the plaintiffs’ case. SM v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 04370, Second Dept 6-13-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he was questioned about a murder while he was represented on an unrelated marijuana charge. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations and arrested when marijuana was found in the car he was driving, a black Hyundai with tinted windows.  An attorney was assigned for the marijuana charge.  A BlackBerry found in the car was subsequently traced to a robbery where a black Hyundai with tinted windows was seen. According to a witness to a shooting, unrelated to the robbery, the shooter arrived and sped away in a black Hyundai with tinted windows. Defendant, when he was represented only on the marijuana charge, was questioned about the robbery and the murder and admitted to being the get-away driver. Supreme Court allowed defendant’s statement about the murder in evidence and defendant was convicted of murder. The Appellate Division held that the statement about the murder should have been suppressed because the robbery and the marijuana charge were related and Supreme Court had suppressed the statement about the robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the proper analysis required looking at the marijuana charge and the murder, not the marijuana charge and the robbery. Because the marijuana charge was completely unrelated to the murder, questioning about the murder did not violate defendant’s right to counsel:

​Under Cohen [90 NY2d 632] the relevant comparison is between the unrepresented and the represented charges. The first category concerns whether “questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel”… . The purpose of the rule is to protect the right to counsel once it has attached; if the questioning on the unrepresented charge will inevitably lead to statements about the represented charge, the statements should be suppressed. However, if the relationship between the unrepresented and the represented charges is insufficient, then “discrete questioning [on the unrepresented charge] by a police officer mindful and respectful of the indelible attachment of defendant’s right to counsel [on the represented charge] would not [] create[] any serious risk of incriminating responses as to the latter crime[]” … . Thus, the question the Appellate Division should have considered is whether the murder charge was sufficiently related to the marijuana charge. No evidence in the record would support that claim; indeed, even [defendant] does not press it. People v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 04275, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, LTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))

, ,

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly prohibited cross examination of the plaintiff about his criminal history and plaintiff’s expert properly relied upon hearsay statements by plaintiff’s treating physician:

… [W]hile a civil litigant is granted broad authority to use the criminal convictions of a witness to impeach the credibility of that witness, the nature and extent of cross-examination, including with respect to criminal convictions, remains firmly within the discretion of the trial court … . …

It is well settled that ” opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness’ ” … . It is equally well settled, however, that an expert is permitted to offer opinion testimony based upon facts not in evidence where the material is ” of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ “… . “The professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession’ “… , and “provided that it does not constitute the sole or principal basis for the expert’s opinion” … . Tornatore v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 04145, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL HISTORY (EVIDENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the portion of defendant’s videotaped statement that was allowed in evidence should have been suppressed, and the jury should not have heard defendant’s grand jury testimony because he was not competent to testify at the time:

… [T]he court erred in suppressing only a portion of his videotaped statement to police investigators inasmuch as the portion of the statement that the court refused to suppress was also obtained prior to the administration of Miranda warnings. Although the court properly determined that defendant was in custody from the outset of the interview, we conclude that the court erred in determining that Miranda warnings were not required before defendant admitted to having a foot fetish inasmuch as “the facts indicated that an interrogational environment existed” from the outset of the interview … . …

Although a defendant is presumed to be competent to testify before the grand jury … , here, we conclude that defendant rebutted that presumption. Indeed, defendant’s grand jury testimony, a rambling, delusional and bizarre narrative of government conspiracy, prompted one grand juror to inquire of defendant whether he had any psychiatric diagnoses. Within days of his testimony at the grand jury, the arraigning court referred defendant for a CPL article 730 psychiatric examination based upon what the court described as “confused, or bizarre behavior” and the inability “to understand charges or court processes.” Shortly thereafter, two psychiatric examiners found that defendant lacked capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense based upon a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type. As a result, defendant was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility under the auspices of the Office of Mental Health. We thus conclude that defendant rebutted the presumption of competence, and that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to preclude the grand jury testimony … . People v Perri, 2018 NY Slip Op 04134, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-MIRANDA, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/MIRANDA (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-MIRANDA, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/GRAND JURY (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPETENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance, determined the circumstantial evidence of constructive possession of the drugs found in an apartment was legally insufficient:​

Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time when the police executed the search warrant, “no evidence was presented to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that [she] regularly frequented it”… . The People relied primarily on the trial testimony of a police investigator, who testified that defendant was listed in the records management system of the Utica Police Department (UPD) as living at the apartment. The investigator acknowledged on cross-examination, however, that he did not know how the UPD obtained that information and that the information in the records management system is not always current or even accurate. The investigator also testified that he surveilled the building in which the apartment was located “hundreds” of times over the course of a three-week investigation, and that he observed defendant “at that location” only twice. Although the investigator testified that “typical women’s clothing” was found in the apartment, he failed to offer specifics except for three pairs of footwear, which he believed might fit defendant. By contrast, he testified in detail about men’s underwear and men’s deodorant found in a dresser drawer, men’s work boots piled near the dresser, and men’s sweatshirts hanging over a couch. Photographs of the clothing were received in evidence, and those photographs did not depict any “typical women’s clothing,” with the possible exception of one or two pairs of footwear. People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 04173, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the claimant (wife of the decedent worker who died of cardiac arrest) was not notified the board would consider a medical file relating to a prior injury:

Here, the Board relied on medical records apparently contained in the case file for a separate claim filed by decedent based on a November 2014 fall at work. … The employer did not request that the Board rely on those 2014 records, nor did it adhere to the procedure for introducing additional evidence into the administrative appeal that was not before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge… . The Board’s rule provides that, if that procedure is not followed, the Board “will not” consider such new evidence… .

Claimant was prejudiced because she was not on notice — until she received the Board decision — that the Board would rely on documents from another case file. The employer argues that the referenced medical reports cannot be objectionable because they accurately reflect the treatment rendered, but we cannot verify that without reviewing those reports. The employer further argues that no response to the medical records would change the strength of either side’s argument, but that proposition is mere speculation. Either party may have chosen to submit additional medical records reflecting on decedent’s medical treatment from November 2014 until his death in July 2015 had the parties been on notice that this period of treatment would be at issue. Matter of Kaplan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04068, Third Dept 6-7-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a custody proceeding, determined out of court statements by a child about abuse by the stepfather were properly deemed admissible because they were sufficiently corroborated:

… [T]he older child’s out-of-court statements concerning the sexual abuse perpetrated upon her by the stepfather did not constitute impermissible hearsay. Where, as here, a child’s out-of-court statements relate to abuse or neglect, such statements are admissible in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding so long as they are sufficiently corroborated … . “The relatively low degree of required corroboration may be provided by ‘[a]ny other evidence tending to support the reliability of the [child’s] statements'”… . While the mere repetition of an accusation does not, by itself, provide sufficient corroboration … , “some degree of corroboration can be found in the consistency of the out-of-court repetitions” … . Proof of the abuse of another child can also provide the requisite corroboration … . The sufficiency and “reliability of the corroboration, as well as issues of credibility, are matters entrusted to the sound discretion of Family Court and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” … .​

The maternal aunt testified that, while babysitting the children … , the older child disclosed that the stepfather comes into her room in the middle of the night and “touches in [her] butt.” The child also revealed the sexual abuse to the father, specifically stating that, while she was locked in her room, the stepfather would pull back the covers and reach into her underwear. The maternal aunt described changes in the older child’s behavior that coincided with the time frame in which the alleged sexual abuse occurred, explaining that the child, who used to be happy and playful, became “unsociable” and “scared,” as if something was bothering her. A therapist whom the older child began seeing following the disclosures testified that the child was “very distant,” “detached” and “withdrawn” during their interactions and opined that the child exhibited behavior that was consistent with that of a four-year-old who may have experienced trauma. Further, a woman whose father had previously lived with the stepfather provided detailed and graphic testimony of her own sexual abuse at the hands of the stepfather when she was a young girl. During interviews with the State Police, both this woman as well as her sister confirmed that they had been sexually abused by the stepfather when they were younger. In view of this proof, and according due deference to Family Court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, we conclude that the older child’s statements were adequately corroborated … . Matter of Cory O. v Katie P., 2018 NY Slip Op 04046, Third Dept 6-7-18

FAMILY LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ABUSE, HEARSAY, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT))/HEARSAY (FAMILY LAW, ABUSE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ABUSE, HEARSAY, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT))/CORROBORATION (FAMILY LAW, ABUSE, HEARSAY, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ABUSE, HEARSAY, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD 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