You are here: / Evidence
,

NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF WHEN AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s parking lot slip and fall. The evidence described only general inspection practices and did not indicate when the area of the fall was last inspected:

… [T]he defendant failed to demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall. The defendant relied upon, inter alia, the deposition testimony and affidavit of the property manager, which merely referred to her general inspection practices for the parking lot and provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the area in question prior to the injured plaintiff’s fall … . Maria De Los Angeles Baez v Willow Wood Assoc., LP, 2018 NY Slip Op 01589, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF WHEN AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF WHEN AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF WHEN AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case. Defendants demonstrated they did not have notice that water pooled in the parking lot in the area where plaintiff allegedly fell on ice. The dissent argued that defendants did not demonstrate the formation of ice was not a recurring condition. The majority held that, because plaintiff did not allege the ice was a recurring condition, defendants did not have to present evidence on the issue:

The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged black ice condition or have actual or constructive notice of it … . In particular, Picone’s [Picone worked at the property] statement in his affidavit that water did not pond in the parking lot during the 38 years he worked at the property necessarily addresses and excludes any recurring condition in the same lot. In opposition to the prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants created the alleged condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. …

… .[T]he plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a recurring condition at the specific site of her fall. Thus, the defendants had no obligation, in support of their motion for summary judgment, to address the issue of a recurring condition. Further, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to argue that any recurring condition was specific to the location within the parking lot where she is alleged to have fallen … . Bader v River Edge at Hastings Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01588, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/RECURRING CONDITION (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell from a scaffold which did not have railings. Defendant’s attempts (for the first time on appeal) to introduce plaintiff’s alleged hearsay statement that he fell when climbing up to the scaffold were rejected:

It is undisputed that the subject scaffold did not have railings, toe boards, or cross-bracing, and there was no place for plaintiff to tie off his safety harness. As such, plaintiff established a violation of the statute. Moreover, plaintiff testified that the accident occurred when he was on the scaffold, tripped on a block, and fell backward, off the scaffold to the ground, and his worker’s compensation claim also provides that he slipped and fell while on the scaffold. This is sufficient to establish that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury … . …

[Re: plaintiff’s alleged statement:] The business record exception is inapplicable, since defendants have not submitted the incident report for the … accident. The present sense impression exception is also inapplicable, since the out-of-court statement from plaintiff to the foreman that he fell while climbing up the scaffold is not corroborated by independent evidence … . The excited utterance exception does not apply, since defendants have not provided sufficient evidence of plaintiff’s mental state or established that he made the hearsay statement to the foreman under the stress of excitement … . Furthermore, plaintiff’s statement to the foreman does not fall within the declaration against interest exception because plaintiff was available to, and did, testify as a witness; there is no evidence that plaintiff knew the statement was adverse to his interests when it was made; and the supporting circumstances do not attest to its trustworthiness or reliability … . Gomes v Pearson Capital Partners LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01560, First Dept 3-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery first degree charge (no evidence of threat with a dangerous instrument) and the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into defense counsel’s request to withdraw:

Indisputably, the “gun” was plastic and did not work, and there was no evidence that it could potentially harm someone… . Similarly, while there was testimony that one of the men entering the motel room was holding the tire checker, there was no evidence that any individual brandished the tire checker in a threatening manner… . … [T]here is no question that one of the individuals possessed a dangerous instrument. What was missing was any evidence that there was any verbal threat of immediate use of the instrument or that it was “employ[ed]” in any way … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. County Court’s determination focused on the inconveniences that would result if counsel were substituted and the trial were delayed one month, as well as defendant’s propensity to complain. But it was trial counsel, not defendant, complaining that the relationship had broken down, and the request was not made on the eve of trial. While we are not suggesting that a request made by counsel warrants heightened inquiry, “a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” may constitute good cause for substitution… , and there was no inquiry here to assess the gravity of counsel’s concerns in this regard. The motion raised specific examples to support trial counsel’s claim that there was “an irretrievable breakdown” in the relationship with defendant. As such, the court should have first questioned both defendant and trial counsel about “the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” prior to denying the motion … . Absent such a “minimal inquiry,” we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction … . People v Matthews, 2018 NY Slip Op 01499, Second Dept 3-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ATTORNEYS, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ROBBERY (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ROBBERY, DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (ROBBERY, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/WITHDRAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statement and a buccal swab should have granted but the error was harmless. The dissent argued the error was not harmless. The court noted that a violation of the right to counsel can be raised on appeal even when the error was not preserved:

… [A] recording of the defendant’s custodial statement to the police, which was entered into evidence at the hearing, shows that during the interview the defendant twice stated, “I think I need a lawyer.” The defendant’s statements constituted an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, and after those statements, the police continued their questioning of the defendant and took no steps to comply with the defendant’s unequivocal request for counsel. Therefore, the remainder of the defendant’s statement after that point, as well as the buccal swab that he provided to the police after that point, should have been suppressed from evidence … . People v Bethea, 2018 NY Slip Op 01474, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION,  DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/BUCCAL SWAB (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction after a weight of the evidence analysis, over a dissent, determined that defendant had proved the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect by the preponderance of the evidence:

… [W]e conclude that the jury was not justified in finding that the preponderance of the evidence failed to establish that the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong at the time that he possessed the loaded firearm and shot Wright. The undisputed trial evidence established that at the relevant time, the defendant was suffering from auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and “incorrect perceptions” of reality. The opinion of the People’s expert psychologist that the defendant did not suffer a schizoaffective disorder, notwithstanding such a diagnosis by the defendant’s treating psychiatrists over the past three years, was conclusory. Moreover, the psychologist’s alternative theory that the defendant’s hallucinations were due to his use of PCP were purely speculative and without adequate evidentiary support. The psychologist’s conclusion that the defendant was motivated by revenge against a person he mistakenly perceived to have stolen his shorts was also speculative and contrary to the credible evidence presented. We accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … , and weigh conflicting expert evidence … . However, on this record, the rational inferences which can be drawn from the evidence presented at trial do not support the conviction. People v Spratley, 2018 NY Slip Op 01488, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion defendant acted as an accomplice in the assault of a homeless man. The codefendant doused the homeless man with lighter fluid and set him on fire. The defendant said “Do that shit man” and recorded the incident on his phone for one minute before attempting put out the fire:

For the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of the codefendant, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to engage in that conduct, and that the defendant did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense (see Penal Law § 20.00). A defendant’s mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with the perpetrator of a crime, is not enough for accessorial liability … .

It is undisputed that the defendant did not assist the codefendant in dousing the victim with lighter fluid or setting fire to the victim, and did not supply any of the materials to the codefendant to commit the criminal act. The defendant’s actions, in uttering, “Do that shit, man,” as the codefendant doused the victim with lighter fluid, and in filming this incident for approximately one minute before rendering any aid to this particularly vulnerable and helpless victim, were deplorable. However, his actions did not support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to assault the victim, and that he did so sharing the codefendant’s state of mind. People v Fonerin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01480, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE LIABILIITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))

,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, in a comprehensive street stop (DeBour) analysis too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he asked defendant, a passenger in a car, “what do you have.” Defendant replied that he had a “piece” and he was convicted of possession of a weapon:

There was nothing improper about the police officers’ direction that the defendant and the two other occupants exit the vehicle. “In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, the scope of that authority is limited to guarding against “the unique danger of a partially concealed automobile occupant by allowing the officer to order occupants out of a car and readily observe their movements” … . …

In the context of a traffic stop, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” …, thereby squarely placing this type of inquiry within De Bour level two. Moreover, mere nervousness does not provide the requisite indication of criminality … .

Here, the circumstances described by Officer Weibert at the suppression hearing did not establish “a founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” … . Significantly, there was no testimony of a bulge at the defendant’s waistband … , or any indication that the defendant was reaching for, grabbing at, or adjusting his waistband … . To the contrary, Officer Weibert denied that the defendant made any furtive gesture or reached for anything; he testified only that the defendant was acting nervous, shaking his knees and legs up and down, and leaning forward in his seat with his hands in his lap and his arms tightly at his side. People v White, 2018 NY Slip Op 01492, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant demonstrated it did not have notice of the wet condition of the stairs. Plaintiff’s opposing affidavit contradicted her deposition testimony. Although the deposition was unsigned, defendant demonstrated the certified transcript was provided to plaintiff’s attorneys but it was never returned. Therefore the deposition served as plaintiff’s admission:

Defendant met its prima facie burden on the motion of establishing that it neither created the alleged wet condition nor had prior actual or constructive notice of it. By plaintiff’s own admission, the wet condition, which she never saw but assumes was there, could only have been created moments earlier, having not been present when she walked up the steps … .

Based upon plaintiff’s testimony that she was using both hands to carry her daughter down the steps when she fell, without any indication that she reached for a handrail, defendant established that the lack of a handrail did not proximately cause or contribute to the accident … .

Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition, wherein she claimed that she tried to reach for a handrail when she fell, raised only feigned issues of fact, as it directly contradicted, and appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequence of, her earlier testimony … .

Pursuant to CPLR 3116(a), plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript may be used as though fully signed, as defendant submitted proof that the certified transcript was provided to her attorneys for execution and not returned. Moreover, an unsigned but certified transcript may be used as an admission… , especially where, as here, there is no dispute as to the accuracy of the transcript … . Luna v CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01429, First Dept 3-6-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116 (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITION (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ADMISSION  (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS  (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction, noted the difference between a “legal sufficiency” analysis and a “weight of the evidence” analysis on appeal, and reiterated that criminally negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense within depraved indifference murder. Here the two-year old victim was subjected to severed physical abuse over a period of days or longer:

Defendant argues that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. A legal sufficiency challenge requires us to “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged'” … . A legally sufficient verdict may, however, be against the weight of the evidence … . The latter review requires us to assess whether acquittal was a reasonable possibility and, if so, to weigh “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” in deciding whether the verdict was justified … . * * *

Criminally negligent homicide demands that a person act “with criminal negligence” and, in doing so, “causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). Inasmuch as criminal negligence involves a person failing “to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk” of the result set forth by the statute (Penal Law § 15.05 [4]), a person does not commit criminally negligent homicide unless he or she fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death …  In contrast, Penal Law § 125.25 (4) demands that an adult person, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, . . . recklessly engage[] in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than [11] years old” and that ends in the other person’s death (emphasis added).

The definition of serious physical injury encompasses injuries that do not create a substantial risk of death or cause death, such as those that cause “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]). As we have previously held, it is therefore theoretically possible to commit depraved indifference murder of a child by “engag[ing] in conduct that creates and disregards a grave risk of serious physical injury, causing death, without . . . engaging in conduct that creates . . . a substantial risk of death, causing death” … . People v Stahli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01359, Third Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (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