You are here: / Evidence
,

TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the trooper who stopped defendant’s vehicle did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time the trooper asked questions which amounted to a De Bour level two inquiry:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of possessing or transporting 30,000 or more unstamped cigarettes … . When a State Trooper pulled over defendant for speeding on Interstate 81, he noticed “several large nylon bags” with “square edged contours” filling the area behind the driver’s seat. The Trooper initially asked defendant what was inside the bags, i.e., whether there was luggage in the bags, and defendant gave a series of increasingly implausible answers, including “clothing,” “presents,” “riding toys,” and “bicycles.” Defendant asked if he could leave, but the Trooper instead requested that he exit the vehicle while the Trooper spoke to two passengers. When the Trooper returned to speak to defendant, but before he advised defendant of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted that the bags contained nearly 300 cartons of untaxed cigarettes purchased from an Indian reservation.

We conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence and statements at issue. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, our rationale is not grounded in custody and/or Miranda issues. “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” … . Here, defendant was not in custody during his temporary roadside detention, and it was permissible for the Trooper to engage in a reasonable interrogation of defendant without first advising him of his Miranda rights … .

We conclude, however, that the Trooper’s initial inquiry concerning the contents of the bags constituted a level two common-law inquiry, which required a founded suspicion of criminality that was not present at the time … . Indeed, we note that nervousness, fidgeting, and illogical or contradictory responses to level one inquiries do not permit an officer to escalate an encounter to a level two De Bour confrontation … . Here, the facts are even more strongly in favor of defendant inasmuch as defendant’s evasive and inconsistent answers were themselves induced by a level two inquiry from the Trooper. Because a founded suspicion of criminality did not arise until after the Trooper asked defendant what was inside the bags, the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence. People v Gates, 2017 NY Slip Op 05549, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/STREET STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (STREET STOP, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/DE BOUR (LEVEL TWO INQUIRY, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

,

THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the identification testimony by a police officer was unreliable because the photograph upon which the officer’s identification was based was not put in evidence at the hearing. A new trial was ordered. The dissent noted that this is the first case holding an identification unreliable where an unduly suggestive police identification procedure was not involved:

At the hearing, the People attempted to introduce in evidence a photograph that was allegedly used by the undercover officer. The court refused to admit the photograph in evidence, however, on the grounds that the People failed to produce it during discovery and that, in their discovery responses, the People expressly denied the existence of any photographs in the People’s possession. Thus, the photograph, i.e., the linchpin to the undercover officer’s identification of defendant, was not before the court, and we conclude that its absence created a presumption of unreliability in the pretrial identification of defendant by the undercover officer … .

We further note that the People failed to adduce any evidence detailing the procedures used to obtain the photograph at issue … . The undercover officer testified that he was given the name “Kevin Reeves” by a confidential informant. The confidential informant did not testify. Significantly, the officer could not recall if the confidential informant gave him any identifying factors about “Kevin Reeves” such as height, description, or skin color. The officer testified that he entered the name “Kevin Reeves” into a law enforcement computer database and that his search resulted in a photograph that he printed and viewed after the drug transaction. The officer did not testify, however, as to which search criteria he used, how many photos he viewed in response to his search criteria, and how he may have distinguished among more than one photograph generated by his search. As a result of the above shortcomings in the People’s evidence, we conclude that the People failed to rebut the presumption of unreliability of the pretrial identification created by the absence of the photograph … .

FROM THE DISSENT:

I do not believe that there is any legal basis to suppress identification testimony of a defendant based on the alleged unreliability of the witness’s identification unless the identification is the product of unduly suggestive police procedures … . Indeed, a suppression court is not required to make “a threshold inquiry into the reliability of . . . identification testimony” … , and “the reliability of untainted in-court identification testimony presents an issue of fact for jury resolution’ “… .

This is the first reported case in New York where identification testimony has been suppressed in the absence of a finding that the identification was influenced by unduly suggestive police procedures. People v Reeves, 2017 NY Slip Op 05526, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION,  THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)

, , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing this asbestos-related products liability action should not have been granted. Defendants merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and did not submit prima facie proof demonstrating their products were not the source of asbestos exposure. Therefore summary judgment should have been denied without any reference to the opposing papers:

In February 2015, plaintiff Eileen A. O’Connor was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Alleging that her illness stemmed from exposure to equipment containing asbestos while working at the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research (hereinafter WCDLR) from approximately 1975 to 1979, O’Connor, along with her husband, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action in 2015 against, among others, defendants Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Thomas Scientific, Inc. and VWR International, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) … . * * *

… [T]he proof submitted by defendants, respectively, failed to establish that they did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR during the time that O’Connor was employed or that O’Connor was not exposed to any such products … . * * *

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could not have caused O’Connor’s asbestos-related illness… . Fisher Scientific’s lack of documentation from the 1970s does not establish that it did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR. Otherwise, defendants, respectively, “merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff[s’] proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why [plaintiffs’] claims fail” … . O’Connor v Aerco Intl., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05487, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

,

HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined County Court should not have dismissed two hate crimes (attempted murder and assault) upon reading the grand jury minutes. Defendant, who is white, shot the victim, who is black, after a tirade of racial slurs:

Viewed most favorably to the People, the evidence before the grand jury provided a prima facie case of the hate crimes of attempted murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree. The foregoing testimony established that defendant repeatedly hurled several denigrating, racial slurs at the victim alone, whom he did not know, from the outset of the confrontation until the moment before he shot the victim at point blank range. Racial animosity and the use of epithets relating to a protected attribute, such as race, are probative of a defendant’s motive and intent for purposes of proving a hate crime … . The grand jury could have rationally inferred from this evidence — as well as the testimony that defendant had, just a half hour earlier, openly stated to another bar patron that he “hate[d] black people” — that the acts constituting the crimes at issue were motivated “in whole or in substantial part” by the victim’s race (Penal Law § 485.05 [1] [b…). Because the grand jury could have rationally drawn the inference of guilt from this proof, the fact “‘[t]hat other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant'”… . Accordingly, we modify the judgment and reinstate counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. People v Spratley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05478, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/HATE CRIMES (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)

, ,

BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the bank did not meet the requirements for the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Meldin Rhodes, assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current loan servicer. Rhodes averred that “servicing records” showed that the notice of default was mailed to the defendant on November 2, 2011, and the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed on December 28, 2012. Attached to Rhodes’s affidavit were copies of the notice of default and the RPAPL 1304 notice purportedly sent by Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BOA), the prior loan servicer, to the defendant.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Rhodes under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518). Rhodes, an employee of the current loan servicer, did not aver that he was personally familiar with the record keeping practices and procedures of BOA, the prior loan servicer. Thus, Rhodes failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of records concerning service of the required notices, and his assertions based on these records were inadmissible … .

Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice requirement in the mortgage, its motion should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers  … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin. 2017 NY Slip Op 05421, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S LANE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR-END COLLISION, PLEA TO FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE ONLY IF THE VIOLATION IS UNEXCUSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant raised a question of fact whether the cause of the accident was plaintiff’s sudden lane change. The fact that defendant pled guilty to a traffic violation, following too closely, would constitute negligence per se only if unexcused:

Plaintiff … submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, who stated that he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle until immediately before the accident, when plaintiff moved from the middle lane to the right lane and slammed on his brakes in an instant or quickly, i.e., plaintiff’s action was not a slow and cautious movement to which defendant could react … . Defendant explained that he had not seen plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision because he had been paying attention to the road in front of him and, when plaintiff engaged in his maneuver (changed lanes), defendant slammed on his brakes and tried to steer into the shoulder to avoid the accident, which caused the back end of the trailer that was attached to the truck to swing out, and the left corner of the truck struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiff “failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch as he submitted the deposition testimony in which [defendant] provided a nonnegligent explanation for the collision,” namely, that plaintiff caused the collision when he suddenly changed lanes in response to slowing traffic in the middle and left lanes of the highway and abruptly stopped in the right lane in front of defendant … .

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that he established defendant’s negligence as a matter of law by submitting evidence of defendant’s guilty plea of following too closely (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). “It is well settled that the fact that [the] driver entered a plea of guilty to a Vehicle and Traffic Law offense is only some evidence of negligence and does not establish his negligence per se’ ” … . “Rather, it is the unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [that] constitutes negligence per se’ ” … . Here, upon defendant’s explanation, the trier of fact could excuse the violation on the ground that plaintiff cut in front of defendant and immediately stopped, thereby failing to provide defendant with adequate time to create the “reasonable and prudent” distance between the vehicles that is required by the statute … . Gardner v Chester, 2017 NY Slip Op 05336, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof in this foreclosure action did not meet the criteria of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

We agree with defendants that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of its motion was insufficient to establish standing. The Caliber employee who authored the affidavit stated that Caliber maintains plaintiff’s books and records pertaining to the mortgage account; plaintiff had physical possession of the original note before the action was commenced and remained in physical possession of the original note as of the date of the motion; and he was personally familiar with Caliber’s record-keeping practices. However, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its records pertaining to defendants’ account were admissible as business records (see CPLR 4518 [a]), inasmuch as the affiant did not swear that he was personally familiar with plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures… .

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the mere attachment of a copy of the note to the verified complaint does not demonstrate that plaintiff had physical possession of the original note when the action was commenced … , and thus is insufficient to establish standing. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Anderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05349, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

PEOPLE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS, THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY AFFIRMATIVELY DAMAGED THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND WAS NOT, AS ARGUED BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES, MERELY NEUTRAL OR UNHELPFUL.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the People were properly allowed to impeach their own witness when the witness testified she did not see the driver of the car from which shots were fired. She had previously stated the defendant was the driver. The concurring justices argued that the witness’s changed testimony did not affirmatively damage the People’s case, but was merely neutral and unhelpful, and therefore impeachment was not appropriate. However, the concurring justices deemed the error harmless:

Contrary to defendant’s … contention, the court properly allowed the People to impeach the credibility of the victim’s girlfriend when she testified that she did not see the driver of the vehicle who shot the victim, which contradicted her grand jury testimony and her sworn statement identifying defendant as the shooter. It is well established that “[e]vidence of a prior contradictory statement may be received for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness’s credibility with respect to his or her testimony . . . [where, as here], the testimony on a material fact’ . . . tend[s] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[s] the party’s case’ ” … . We conclude that the testimony of the witness denying that she saw the driver related to a material fact, the identity of the shooter, and affirmatively damaged the People’s case … , particularly because the victim did not testify. People v Ellison, 2017 NY Slip Op 05339, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the characterization of the DNA evidence by the prosecutor was not improper, and defense counsel’s failure to object to the characterization did not constitute ineffective assistance:

The People’s forensic expert gave statistical testimony regarding the likelihood (“1.661 quadrillion times more likely”) that defendant and his deceased wife, rather than two randomly selected individuals, were contributors to a DNA mixture profile drawn from a blood stain on defendant’s sweatshirt. The prosecutor, during his summation, summarized this testimony by telling the jury that the victim’s DNA was “on” defendant’s sweatshirt. Defense counsel’s failure to object to this characterization did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The expert testimony regarding the “likelihood ratio” here contrasts with the testimony at issue in People v Wright (25 NY3d 769 [2015]), which “only indicated that defendant could not be excluded from the pool of male DNA contributors, and . . . provided no statistical comparison to measure the significance of those results” … . Nor did counsel’s other alleged errors of representation, either individually or collectively, deprive defendant of meaningful representation. People v Ramsaran, 2017 NY Slip Op 05268, CtApp 6-29-17

 

,

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS ESCALATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she was walking up a stopped escalator when it suddenly started moving downward, causing her to fall. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a question of fact:

“Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … . In order to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must show that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and that it was not due to any voluntary act or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “To rely on res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury. It is enough that the evidence supporting the three conditions afford a rational basis for concluding that it is more likely than not’ that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that, once this particular escalator is stopped, it will not reset itself or otherwise restart on its own. Someone has to restart the escalator by physically using a specific key at the top or bottom of the escalator in order for the escalator to start moving again. Similarly, there was evidence that the only possible way to reverse the direction of the escalator was to use that specific key. Only Port Authority employees had access to the key, which was kept in a locked cabinet in the office of a unit maintenance supervisor. The fact that the escalator was open to the public does not remove it from the exclusive control of the Port Authority because the mechanism for controlling the escalator was locked and accessible only by a specific key … . Ramjohn v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 05254, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

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