You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department withheld decision and directed the People to provide defense counsel with certain trial exhibits counsel was unable to access prior to perfecting the appeal:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the People deprived him of an opportunity to develop an effective argument on appeal by failing to provide him with certain video and photographic exhibits that were introduced into evidence at trial in a format that he could readily view … . Specifically, defendant avers that, although the People provided him with copies of 14 DVDs introduced as exhibits at trial, he was unable to view the contents of exhibit Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 108.

Defendant has a “fundamental right to appellate review of a criminal conviction” … and, to that end, it is well-settled that the People “‘must provide a record of trial sufficient to enable a defendant to present reviewable issues on appeal'” … . Here, there is no dispute that the subject exhibits were admitted into evidence, were viewed by the juries at both of defendant’s trials and are now a part of the record from which defendant may prepare his appellate arguments and this Court may conduct meaningful appellate review. Based upon our own efforts to view these exhibits, we find defendant’s observation to have merit. People v Haggray, 2018 NY Slip Op 04036, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in an appeal by the People of a suppression ruling, determined the suppression motion should have been denied in its entirety. Defendant never made a motion to suppress information taken from his cell phone. Yet County Court apparently speculated that the police must have searched defendant’s cell phone before the Miranda warnings were given:

… [T]he detectives approached defendant outside his place of employment and asked him to accompany them to the police station. Defendant voluntarily agreed and they drove him to the station without placing him in handcuffs. The videotaped statement indicates that, during the ride and before entering the interview room, they engaged in general conversation regarding defendant’s background, education, employment and family life, but did not discuss the criminal investigation. Inside the interview room, defendant was initially not restrained. The detectives asked if he would like water and provided him a drink. Later, they obtained a cigarette and allowed him to smoke it, and permitted him to make a phone call. At the beginning of the conversation in the interview room, a detective administered Miranda warnings and defendant stated that he was willing to talk to them and answer questions. Defendant was not threatened or coerced during the interview.

County Court did not rely on these facts, but instead focused on what it deemed “the troubling and unavoidable issue that, prior to entering the interview room and prior to Miranda warnings, . . . defendant’s phone had already been seized by the police.” The court highlighted the People’s failure at the hearing to address this seizure of the phone even though, as discussed above, the People were not on notice that anything related to the phone was being challenged by defendant. The court chastised the People for failing to acknowledge or explain “the circumstances under which . . . defendant’s phone was seized and potentially searched, pre-Miranda.” The record contains no factual support for, and actually belies, the court’s speculative assertion that the phone was searched before Miranda warnings were administered, because the video shows that, when the detective eventually brought the phone into the interview room and obtained defendant’s consent to look at some of its features, defendant had to unlock the phone with either a password or swiping pattern. People v Moore, 2018 NY Slip Op 04042, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, PEOPLE’S APPEAL,  DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial two-justice dissent, determined the evidence did not support the serious physical injury element of assault first and reduced the conviction to attempted assault first. The victim was shot in the leg. The dissenters argued the serious physical injury element had been proven. The majority focused on weaknesses of the evidence of serious physical injury and found it deficient under a weight of the evidence analysis:

… [T]he weight of the evidence does not support a finding that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. Serious physical injury is defined as a “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” … . As to whether the victim sustained a physical injury that created a substantial risk of death, the victim testified that, following the shooting, he was in “miraculous pain,” he underwent two surgeries, his tibia bone was “shattered” and pins were inserted to hold the bones in place. The pins, however, were removed four months after their insertion, at which point the pain subsided. The victim then wore a cast on his leg for 1½ months. Although the victim’s injuries are by no means trivial, they fall short of constituting injuries that create a substantial risk of death. There was no evidence that the victim lost consciousness after being shot or that a vital organ was damaged. Nor was there any proof, lay or medical, indicating that the victim’s injuries caused a substantial risk of death or were life threatening … .

* * * … [A]lthough the victim’s testimony and the photographs show a significant injury immediately following the shooting, there was no corresponding proof regarding its long-term effects … . …​

As to whether the victim sustained a serious and protracted disfigurement, we note that the victim showed his scar to the jury. There was, however, no contemporaneous description of what the jury saw to demonstrate the extent of such scarring, nor can such extent be discerned from the photographs entered into evidence … . People v Marshall, 2018 NY Slip Op 04038, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/ASSAULT (SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ( UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the denial of summary judgment and the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict in this probate action, determined evidence included in a settlement letter and hearsay relied upon an expert witness were properly admitted. The court further found that the missing witness jury instruction for the decedent’s treating doctors was proper, but the missing witness jury instruction for the attorney who drafted the will, who lives in Florida, was (harmless) error. The jury revoked preliminary letters:

Although CPLR 4547 precludes presentation of evidence of settlement negotiations, it expressly exempts exclusion of evidence, which is otherwise discoverable, solely because such evidence was presented during the course of settlement negotiations.

The list of paintings that was signed by proponent as part of the settlement conference in Shanghai was admitted into evidence because it included a factual admission that proponent possessed a painting that he accused objectant of stealing. Thus, its use at trial was permissible, notwithstanding that the factual statement was contained in a settlement document … . …

The court’s missing witness charge with respect to the attorney, Jerome Kamerman, was in error. Mr. Kamerman was living in Florida at the time of trial and was unavailable to proponents … . …

A psychiatrist’s opinion may be received in evidence even though some of the information on which it is based is inadmissible hearsay, if the hearsay is “of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion, or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on [] trial” … . The court properly permitted the expert to testify, despite his conversations with objectant, since she was subject to full cross-examination at trial. Matter of Chi-ChuanFile Wang, 2018 NY Slip Op 04090, First Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS  (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 4547 (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (MISSING WITNESSES, EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/MISSING WITNESS INSTRUCTION (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (EXPERT OPINION, EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance to allow their expert to testify in this medical malpractice action should have been granted.

When the expert … arrived in the late morning of December 1, 2016, he did not have his original file with him. According to the expert, he left the original file in his hotel and it was his belief that it was not necessary for him to have it in order to testify. Defendant objected to having the expert testify until the original file was with him. Supreme Court directed the expert to have his office make arrangements to immediately bring the original file to the courthouse with the hope that it would arrive in the afternoon. According to the court, the expert could then testify that afternoon and finish the next day, on Friday, December 2, 2016. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, advised the court that the expert had scheduled appointments with patients on December 2, 2016 and was unavailable to testify that day or on December 5, 2016. The next available day for the expert was Tuesday, December 6, 2016. The court, however, instructed the expert to reschedule his appointments. The expert testified in the afternoon of December 1, 2016, but by the completion of direct examination by plaintiffs’ counsel, the original file had not arrived. …

On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs’ expert did not appear. …

We conclude that plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance should have been granted … . The record does not support Supreme Court’s finding that the failure of plaintiffs’ expert to appear and complete his testimony on December 2, 2016 stemmed from a lack of due diligence by plaintiffs … . Normandin v Bell, 2018 NY Slip Op 04053, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUANCE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT WITNESS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CONTINUANCE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder and assault. During a high speed chase defendant fired a bullet into the car he was following. The driver, Singh, lost control and struck a trestle. One person, Arena, was killed, and Singh and another person, Weiner, were seriously injured. Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had been convicted of these crimes in 2003 and they were affirmed on appeal. But he obtained federal habeas corpus relief in 2013 and was retried in 2015.The sentencing court properly imposed a consecutive sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, which was not an inclusory concurrent count. One of the witnesses in the first trial had been deported and the court properly admitted his testimony at the second trial:

[T]he evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person. The defendant engaged in a high-speed chase, in the course of which he fired a gun at the fleeing car, causing Singh, the driver, to lose control of that car. Following the crash, the defendant exhibited no signs of remorse for the results of his recklessness, and even went so far as to express his disappointment that Weiner had survived the crash. The direct and circumstantial evidence proved that the defendant deliberately engaged in a high-speed chase and shot at Singh’s car with an utter disregard for the value of human life, and thus, was legally sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the defendant acted with depraved indifference with respect to the death of Arena and the serious injuries sustained by Singh and Weiner … . …

The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in admitting the testimony of Jose Vanderlinde from the first trial is without merit. Vanderlinde had testified at the defendant’s first trial but was deported before the second trial commenced, and was barred from re-entering the United States. Under these circumstances, the court properly admitted Vanderlinde’s testimony from the defendant’s first trial, as the prosecutor’s failure to produce the witness “was not due to indifference or a strategic preference for presenting [the witness’s] testimony in the more sheltered form of [trial] minutes rather than in the confrontational setting of a personal appearance on the stand … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/PRIOR TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress items taken from his person should have been granted because the sequence of events which would have legitimized the search was not proven at the hearing:

… [W]e agree with the People that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on the detective’s report that he saw a possible drug transaction in which a Hispanic man later identified as defendant, who was wearing a black leather jacket, handed a bag containing two small white objects to another man before walking away, in close temporal and spatial proximity to defendant’s apprehension … . However, this information did not establish probable cause to arrest and search defendant. The detective did not testify that he observed anything that appeared to be money being exchanged or handled by either of the two men, that there was anything furtive about their behavior aside from the sheer brevity of their encounter, or that the area was particularly drug prone … .

When the detective recovered a bag containing drugs after the apparent buyer discarded it, this clearly raised the level of suspicion to probable cause. However, the nontestifying officers had detained defendant based only on the information known at the time of the initial radioed report. The People’s assertion that the search occurred after the testifying detective made a confirmatory identification of defendant is unsupported by the record. In fact, the detective could not specify when the search occurred, or when he learned about it, and the People did not call any witnesses to testify about the nature and timing of the search based on personal knowledge. People v Ayarde, 2018 NY Slip Op 03750, First Dept 5-24-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GAVE THE GALBO JURY INSTRUCTION RE DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY IN THIS BURGLARY CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial court properly gave the Galbo charge in this burglary case:

… Supreme Court [did not err] in giving the jury a Galbo charge (see People v Galbo, 218 NY 283) to the effect that the defendant’s guilt of burglary could be inferred from his recent, unexplained, and exclusive possession of the stolen items. The prosecution presented both circumstantial and direct evidence, including admissions made by the defendant during a series of telephone calls, that the defendant committed the burglary and possessed the items, and there was no reasonable view of the evidence whereby the jury could have found that the defendant unlawfully possessed the property without also finding that he committed the burglary … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 03703, Second Dept 5-23-18

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the People’s motion to compel defendant to submit to a buccal swab for DNA testing was untimely under Criminal Procedure Law 240.90. But the admission of the evidence did not require reversal because the error did not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights. People v Cox, 2018 NY Slip Op 03698, Second Dept 5-23-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/BUCCAL SWAB (DNA, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the argument plaintiff did not allege in the bill of particulars that defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of a physician (Devlin) was raised for the first time in reply papers and, therefore, should not have been considered by the motion court. The Second Department went on to find that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not vicariously liable for Devlin’s actions should not have been granted. Whether Devlin acted as an agent for the hospital depended upon written agreements which were not submitted with the motion papers:

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief … . Since the plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to oppose the new argument in a surreply, the court should not have granted relief based upon that argument … .

… [T]he general rule is that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, but is one of a group of independent contractors … . However, a hospital may be vicariously liable if a nonemployee physician acted as its agent or if it exercised control over the physician … . Here, Devlin was an intensivist employed by the defendant Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C. (hereinafter Nassau Chest Physicians), who cared for [plaintiff] in the Hospital’s intensive care unit after surgery was performed. She was the sole intensivist on duty for all four of the Hospital’s intensive care units during her shift. Devlin only worked at the Hospital; she did not work for Nassau Chest Physicians at any other site. The Hospital claimed that she was not under its control and not its agent. However, the Hospital’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians and Devlin’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians were governed by written agreements, and those written agreements were not submitted in support of the motion. Since the defendants failed to submit this or other evidence establishing, prima facie, that Devlin was not under the Hospital’s control and not its agent when she rendered care to Castro, they failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Castro v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 03503, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (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