You are here: / Evidence
,

RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the recording of a phone call made by defendant while he was detained was properly subpoenaed by the prosecution and defendant’s motion to preclude the recording was properly denied:

The motion court correctly declined to preclude a recorded telephone call that defendant made while detained before trial. Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the call, made primarily on Fourth Amendment grounds, is unavailing. Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors… . Recordings of detainees’ calls are made for security purposes, and not for the purpose of gathering evidence. However, like any other nonprivileged evidence that is possessed by a nonparty and is relevant to a litigation, it may be subject to a lawful subpoena. Accordingly, once defendant consented to the recording of his phone calls, and chose nevertheless to make a call containing a damaging statement, he had no reasonable expectation that the call would be immune from being subpoenaed by the prosecution. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRISON PHONE CALLS, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/PRISON PHONE CALLS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department noted that the defendant’s (NYS’s) failure to plead a jurisdictional defect as a defense (defendant had not timely filed and served notice of claim) waived the defect. The claimant did not present expert evidence to support the medical malpractice claim and therefore did not demonstrate that any alleged deviation from the accepted standard of care was the proximate case of his injury. The claimant alleged a negligent failure to diagnose a urinary tract infection (UTI):

“To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must set forth (1) the standard of care in the locality where the treatment occurred, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, and (3) that the breach was the proximate cause of his or her injuries”… . Further, where, as here, the subject matter (UTIs) and treatment thereof are “not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons”… , the claimant must establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice through expert medical opinion … . Whitfield v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04773, Second Dept 6-27-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT OPINION, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s child pornography convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence. The defendant, who speaks Spanish, gave a written statement in English acknowledging he had downloaded child pornography. However, it was revealed at trial that the police provided information that was in the statement and made changes to the statement without defendant’s permission. The defendant had waived a pre-trial Huntley hearing on the voluntariness of the statement, informing the judge he intended to challenge the voluntariness of the statement at trial. The judge, in this bench trial, erroneously ruled defendant had waived his right to challenge the statement a trial. The defendant testified that he did not download the child pornography and that he gave the statement to protect a family member. A family member testified and admitted “unintentionally” downloading the files. Defendant produced evidence he was at work when at least two of the files were downloaded:

The convictions were based on the defendant’s alleged acts of downloading and/or sharing 15 video files and 2 still images, on multiple dates. The People introduced into evidence, inter alia, a written statement in English that the defendant made to law enforcement officials. In that statement, the defendant acknowledged having downloaded approximately 5 videos containing child pornography; he did not specify the names or descriptions of the materials, or the dates of the actions. The defendant’s written statement included the name of the program used to download contraband materials to this computer, as well as a term allegedly used in titles of child pornography files, but a police investigator acknowledged that he had supplied those terms. Apart from the defendant’s statement to the police, the prosecution adduced no other evidence showing that it was the defendant who had downloaded and/or shared the subject materials, consisting of 15 video files and 2 still photographs, on specific dates and times. …

Although we ordinarily accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor…, under the circumstances of this case, we give no deference to the County Court’s assessment of the defendant’s credibility on the issue of the voluntariness of his statements to law enforcement officials, as the court erroneously precluded the defendant from contesting the voluntariness of the written statement during the trial, contrary to his statutory and constitutional right to do so … . People v Vasquez, 2018 NY Slip Op 04761, Second Dept 6-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (CRIMINAL LAW, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTARINESS OF STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/HUNTLEY HEARING LAW (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL BY WAIVING A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff in this slip and fall case because the defendant store did not preserve video which would have shown the condition of the floor prior to the fall:

Although it was demanded within days of plaintiff’s slip and fall, defendants failed to preserve a video recording of its store that depicted the area of plaintiff’s fall prior to it occurring. Instead, a store employee selectively edited the video to retain only that portion showing approximately 30 seconds prior to plaintiff’s fall and the fall itself. Without the video recording, plaintiff may be unable to establish the origin of the liquid on the floor that she claims caused her to fall, and thus be unable to establish the requisite notice of the alleged condition … . Despite a court order and a discovery conference stipulation, defendants failed to explain why the remainder of the video became unavailable. Davis v Pathmark, 2018 NY Slip Op 04656, First Dept 6-21-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SPOLIATION,  FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/VIDEO (EVIDENCE, SPOLIATION, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO, SPOLIATION, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-pedestrian traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated she suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (fractures in her foot). And defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained when a vehicle operated by defendant struck her foot while she was walking her bicycle on the street beneath an overpass. We agree with plaintiff, as limited by her brief, that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying that part of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference  … , we conclude that defendant failed to meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact, including whether he violated his ” common-law duty to see that which he should have seen [as a driver] through the proper use of his senses’ ” … and his statutory duty to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist[ or] pedestrian” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a]).

Finally, it is uncontested that plaintiff established as a matter of law on her cross motion that she sustained fractures in her foot as a result of the accident and, therefore, she is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Luttrell v Vega, 2018 NY Slip Op 04468, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SERIOUS INJURY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s error in refusing the instruct the jury on manslaughter second and criminally negligent homicide was harmless error. The defendant was charged with murder and the trial court instructed the jury on manslaughter first degree as a lesser included offense. The jury convicted the defendant of both murder and manslaughter first. Because the jury convicted on the top count, and the jury was instructed on the top lesser included offense, the failure to instruct on the more remote lesser included offenses was deemed harmless error. The manslaughter first conviction was reversed as a lesser concurrent count:

As set forth by the Court of Appeals, “where a court charges the next lesser included offense of the crime alleged in the indictment, but refuses to charge lesser degrees than that, . . . the defendant’s conviction of the crime alleged in the indictment forecloses a challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” (People v Boettcher, 69 NY2d 174, 180 [1987]). The premise underlying a determination of harmless error is that, when a jury convicts the defendant of the top (i.e., highest) charged offense and thereby excludes from the case the next lesser (i.e., intermediate) included offense, the verdict dispels any significant probability that the jury, had it been given the option, would have acquitted the defendant of both the highest and intermediate charged offenses and instead convicted the defendant of the even lesser (i.e., remote) included offense that was erroneously not charged … . Thus, cases applying the analysis set forth in Boettcher hold that where the trial court charges the jury with the highest offense of murder in the second degree and the intermediate offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and the jury convicts the defendant of murder in the second degree, the defendant’s challenge on appeal to the court’s denial of a request to charge the remote offenses of manslaughter in the second degree and/or criminally negligent homicide is foreclosed, i.e., any error is harmless … . People v Mcintosh, 2018 NY Slip Op 04455, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not present sufficient proof at the suppression hearing to allow the suppression court to find there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. After a traffic stop, defendant was arrested based upon information from the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department about an active warrant for defendant’s arrest in Cortland. Cocaine seized in a search incident to arrest was the basis for the instant charges against the defendant. The defendant specifically challenged the validity of the communications with the arresting officers concerning the warrant. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present the warrant or any witness with first-hand knowledge about the warrant. The cocaine should have been suppressed:

Despite defendant’s explicit challenge to the reliability of the information justifying his arrest … , the People did not produce the arrest warrant itself prior to the conclusion of the hearing … . Instead, the People relied upon the officer’s testimony concerning his communications with an unidentified person or persons at the 911 Center and his assumptions about how the 911 Center confirmed the existence of an active and valid warrant. That testimony, however, rested “on a pyramid of hearsay, the information having been passed from” the arresting officer to unidentified persons at the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department and back to the officer… . “In making an arrest, a police officer may rely upon information communicated to him by another police officer that an individual is the subject named in a warrant and should be taken into custody in the execution of the warrant . . . However, if the warrant turns out to be invalid or vacated . . . [,] or nonexistent . . . , any evidence seized as a result of the arrest will be suppressed notwithstanding the reasonableness of the arresting officer’s reliance upon the communication” … . Here, without producing the arrest warrant itself or reliable evidence that the warrant was active and valid, the People did not meet their burden of establishing that defendant’s arrest was based on probable cause … . People v Searight, 2018 NY Slip Op 04466, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, affirming defendant’s criminal mischief conviction and the restitution order, looked at the evidentiary issues raised on appeal through the lens of the relevant jury instructions. Where there is no objection to the jury instructions, the proof required of the People is that which is laid out in the jury instructions. The indictment alleged that the defendant and several others vandalized cars at a dealership by scratching the cars with keys causing total damage in the amount of $40,000. On appeal defendant argued (1) the charged offense requires damage to property owned by a “person” and the People did not demonstrate that the car dealership was a “person” within the meaning of the statute, (2) the precise amount of damage attributable to the defendant was not proven, and (3) ordering defendant to pay restitution in the full amount of the damages was error. All of defendant’s arguments were rejected:

The court told the jury that defendant must have damaged the property of “another person” — not “another human being” — and it is common knowledge that personhood can and sometimes does attach to nonhuman entities like corporations or animals …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has written that personhood is “not a question of biological or natural’ correspondence”…, and we can “presume[]” that the jurors had ” sufficient intelligence’ to make [the] elementary logical inferences presupposed by the language of [the court’s] charge” … . In short, defendant’s personhood argument effectively transforms an undefined but commonly understood term into an incorrectly defined term, and we decline to follow him down that path. …

… [T]he jury was instructed — without objection — that “[i]f it is proven . . . that the defendant acted in concert with others, he is thus criminally liable for their conduct. The extent or degree of the defendant’s participation in the crime does not matter” … . Perhaps this instruction was inconsistent with section 20.15 … but it still forecloses defendant’s claim of factual insufficiency as to value. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals previously upheld a restitution award that imposed the full value of the victim’s loss on a single perpetrator, instead of apportioning the loss among the defendant and his accomplices …— as defendant appears to seek here. People v Graves, 2018 NY Slip Op 04503, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Education Law and Public Health Law did not prohibit the release of the identities of persons who participated in a quality assurance review involving plaintiff doctor:

Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit are based on [Peconic Bay Medical Center’s] alleged misrepresentations about the existence of an investigation and the filing of an AAR [adverse action report], and the AAR did not report plaintiff for malpractice but for resigning during an ongoing investigation … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ request to compel defendants to un-redact the identities of nonparty participants in the quality assurance review process should be granted. Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m protect documents “prepared by or at the behest of” a quality assurance committee … . However, they do not protect the mere identities of participants. Brook v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04432, First Dept 6-14-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST 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