You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED THIRD-PARTY ADMISSIONS REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive, comprehensive dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction was properly denied. The defendant was convicted of kidnapping a woman (Heidi) who has never been seen since. The dissent argued newly discovered evidence, third-party admissions, required a new trial. The decision is fact-based and cannot be fairly summarized here:

​

FROM THE DISSENT (JUSTICE CENTRA):

​

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that County Court properly rejected that part of defendant’s motion alleging a Brady violation inasmuch as defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the alleged Brady material was suppressed by the People. I further agree with the majority that the court properly precluded defendant from introducing certain evidence that did not involve third-party admissions. I also agree with the majority that defendant failed to establish his entitlement to relief through an actual innocence claim … . I agree with defendant, however, that he established his entitlement to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. I would therefore reverse the order, grant the motion, vacate the judgment of conviction, and grant a new trial. * * *

​

“When considering the reliability of a declaration, courts should . . . consider the circumstances of the statement, such as, among other things, the declarant’s motive in making the statement—i.e., whether the declarant exculpated a loved one or inculpated someone else, the declarant’s personality and mental state, and the internal consistency and coherence of the declaration’ ” … . Here, Steen, Breckenridge, and Wescott were not related to defendant and were not his friends, and thus had no reason to exonerate him or implicate themselves or their friends in Heidi’s disappearance. Wescott’s statement to Priest revealed that she did not like discussing what happened to Heidi, and she showed fear and reluctance to speak to the police about it. The third-party admissions were made to people they knew, not strangers, and were made to provide explanations, rather than mere theories, to the listener as to what actually happened to Heidi. The majority notes that many of the third-party admissions were inconsistent with each other. At first blush, that seems to be the case inasmuch as the statements were that Heidi’s body was cut up and buried in a cabin, or burned in a wood stove in the cabin, or placed in a van that was sent to Canada to be salvaged. It is certainly possible, however, that all three of those events could have occurred.

I therefore conclude that the testimony of Priest, Braley, and Combes, and the statement of Wescott, would be admissible at defendant’s trial, and that evidence would probably change the result of the trial … . People v Thibodeau, 2017 NY Slip Op 04577, 4th Dept 6-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL)/ADMISSIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, THIRD PARTY ADMISSIONS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED THIRD-PARTY ADMISSIONS, REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL)

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HOWEVER THE HANDGUN WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ABSENT THE STATEMENT AND WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE SUPPRESSION ERROR THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s statement should have been suppressed because he was in custody, not warned of his Miranda rights, and was asked questions designed to elicit an incriminating response. However, although the statement he had a firearm should have been suppressed, the firearm would have been discovered even if the statement had not been made (inevitable discovery doctrine). Therefore the firearm need not be suppressed. Even though the conviction was by guilty plea, the court determined the suppression error could not have affected the defendant’s decision to plead guilty and the conviction was affirmed:

​

Here, defendant’s statement admitting his possession of the handgun was the tainted primary evidence arising from the unlawful pre-Miranda custodial interrogation and must be suppressed … ; however, the inevitable discovery doctrine applies to the handgun as secondary evidence arising therefrom … . We conclude that there was a ” very high degree of probability’ ” that the officers would have discovered the firearm, which was found inside the right leg of defendant’s pants during a lawful and routine search of defendant’s person prior to his attempted flight … .

Although defendant’s statement admitting to the possession of the firearm should have been suppressed, we conclude that the particular circumstances of this case permit the rare application of the harmless error rule to defendant’s guilty plea … . “[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he states or reveals his reason for pleading guilty” … . “The … doctrine is not absolute, however, and [the Court of Appeals has] recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea’ ” … . In our view, because the firearm was not suppressed and would have been admissible at trial, there is no reasonable possibility that the court’s error in failing to suppress defendant’s statement admitting possession of the firearm contributed to his decision to plead guilty … . People v Clanton, 2017 NY Slip Op 04579, 4th Dept 6-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HOWEVER THE HANDGUN WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ABSENT THE STATEMENT AND WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE SUPPRESSION ERROR THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY)/EVIDENCE (SUPPRESSION, INEVITABLE DISCOVERY, (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HOWEVER THE HANDGUN WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ABSENT THE STATEMENT AND WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE SUPPRESSION ERROR THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HOWEVER THE HANDGUN WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ABSENT THE STATEMENT AND WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE SUPPRESSION ERROR THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (INEVITABLE DISCOVERY, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HOWEVER THE HANDGUN WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ABSENT THE STATEMENT AND WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE SUPPRESSION ERROR THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY)/GUILTY PLEA (SUPPRESSION ERROR COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, CONVICTION AFFIRMED)/HARMLESS ERROR (GUILTY PLEA, SUPPRESSION ERROR COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, CONVICTION AFFIRMED)

,

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the search of defendant’s person after traffic stop was not supported by proof of a valid warrant for defendant’s arrest. Defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by a sheriff’s deputy. The driver was arrested for driving without a license. The deputy then checked the defendant’s “data” and found defendant did not have a license and  there was a warrant for defendant. The defendant was then taken into custody on the warrant and cocaine was found in a pat-down search. The People did not demonstrate that the warrant was valid at the time of the arrest. County Court ruled the search was a valid “safety pat-down” before placing defendant in the police car:

​

We agree with defendant that the court erred in upholding the search on the ground that it was a lawful “safety pat-down.” There was no evidence in the record of the hearing to support a conclusion that “defendant had a weapon or was a threat to [the deputy’s] safety” … . Moreover, “[a]lthough a police officer may reasonably pat down a person before he [or she] places [that person] in the back of a police vehicle, the legitimacy of that procedure depends on the legitimacy of placing [the person] in the police car in the first place” … . Here, the People failed to establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle. First, the People failed to establish “the existence of a validly-issued and outstanding warrant” … . Once defendant challenged the validity of the warrant by questioning the deputy concerning the status of the warrant and whether it was still valid, the People were “required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the . . . warrant” (id.). The People did not do so. Thus, without establishing the existence of a valid and outstanding warrant, the People failed to establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle … . Although defendant, who did not have a valid driver’s license, could not have driven the stopped vehicle from the scene after the arrest of the driver, the deputy testified that, in the absence of a warrant, defendant could have called for someone to pick him up and therefore could have lawfully refused to be transported away from the scene in the patrol vehicle. People v Richards, 2017 NY Slip Op 04668, 4th Dept 6-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PAT-DOWN SEARCH, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT.

The Fourth Department determined defendants should be sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, but that striking the answer is too severe a sanction. Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on stairs which were replaced by defendants at a time when plaintiff’s expert had yet to examine them. Plaintiff, however, had photographs of the stairs and was therefore able to proceed with the suit:

​

… [W]e conclude that the court abused its discretion in striking defendants’ answer and granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability based on defendants’ destruction of the stairway … . In deciding whether to impose sanctions, and what particular sanction to impose, courts look to the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party, and whether a particular sanction is necessary as a matter of elementary fairness … . The burden is on the party requesting sanctions to make the requisite showing … . “It is well established that a less drastic sanction than dismissal of the responsible party’s pleading may be imposed where[, as here,] the loss does not deprive the nonresponsible party of the means of establishing his or her claim or defense’ ” … . Here, the record does not demonstrate that plaintiff has been left ” prejudicially bereft’ ” of the means of prosecuting her action … , given that plaintiff has in her possession, among other evidence of the condition of the stairs, photographs of the stairs taken after the commencement of this action. Thus, we conclude that an appropriate sanction is that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to any now unavailable evidence of the condition of the stairs … . Burke v Queen of Heaven R.C. Elementary Sch., 2017 NY Slip Op 04593, 4th Dept 6-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, SPOLIATION,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT)

, ,

THIRD DEPT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY.

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was required to supply defendant with the expert-opinion notice required by the CPLR, even though the doctor to be deposed (Cicoria) was a treating physician (the other departments do not so require). The deposition was video-taped. The Third Department fashioned a sanction. The videotaped deposition my be used if the doctor acts as a fact witness. If the doctor is to act as an expert witness, the doctor must testify in person or submit to another deposition:

​

Having concluded that plaintiffs failed to provide the required expert disclosure, we turn our attention to the appropriate remedy for such noncompliance. Plaintiffs’ counsel candidly conceded that he was unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record is otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful. Hence, we see no need to preclude plaintiffs from calling Cicoria to testify at trial. That said, defendant is correct in noting that the current procedural posture of this matter places defendant at something of a disadvantage in that defense counsel prepared for and cross-examined Cicoria as a fact witness and in the context of preserving such testimony for use at trial, which is appreciably different than deposing and cross-examining someone who has been denominated as an expert witness prior to trial. For that reason, simply permitting plaintiffs to file the required expert disclosure at this point will not suffice.

Plaintiffs need to decide whether they wish to utilize Cicoria as a fact witness or as an expert witness (or both). If plaintiffs wish to utilize Cicoria as a fact witness, they may either introduce his previously videotaped testimony at trial (see CPLR 3117 [a] [4]) — subject to defendant’s objections to the expert opinions expressed therein (see CPLR 3115 [a]) and/or a protective order relative thereto (see CPLR 3103 [a]) — or they may call Cicoria to testify in person at trial, in which case Cicoria’s prior recorded testimony may be used solely for impeachment purposes (see CPLR 3117 [a] [1]).  Plaintiffs cannot, however, as they now propose in their brief, have it both ways, i.e., they cannot utilize Cicoria’s recorded testimony as a fact witness and then call him live as an expert witness. Stated another way, Cicoria may testify only once. If plaintiffs desire to utilize Cicoria as an expert witness (or as both a fact witness and as an expert witness), they must — within 30 days of the date of this Court’s decision — tender an expert disclosure that satisfies all of the requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and — within 60 days of the date of this Court’s decision — produce Cicoria (at their expense) for the purpose of being deposed as an expert. Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 04527, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT WITNESS, NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/EXPERT WITNESS (CPLR NOTICE,  THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/TREATING PHYSICIAN (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT WITNESS NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT WITNESS, NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT NOTICE, TREATING PHYSICIAN, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)

, ,

CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that a contempt order in a civil proceeding involving the same funds defendant was accused of stealing in the criminal action: (1) was not Molineux evidence because it involved the same subject matter as did the criminal action; and (2) the probative value of the order on the question of intent outweighed its prejudicial effect:

“When we limit Molineux or other propensity evidence, we do so for policy reasons, due to fear of the jury’s human tendency to more readily believe in the guilt of an accused person when it is known or suspected that he has previously committed a similar crime” … . In other words, the courts limit the admission of Molineux evidence because of the danger that the jury might conclude that if the defendant did it once, he or she likely did it again.

Where, as here, the evidence at issue is relevant to the very same crime for which the defendant is on trial, there is no danger that the jury will draw an improper inference of propensity because no separate crime or bad act committed by the defendant has been placed before the jury. * * *

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the contempt order was relevant to prove defendant’s larcenous intent because “it showed that defendant’s conduct did not merely constitute poor financial management but, rather, that defendant, through his businesses, intended to deprive [the business entity] of the diverted money permanently” … . People v Frumusa, 2017 NY Slip Op 04495, CtApp 6-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS AS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOLINEUX, CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS AS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS AS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence the complainant, who alleged she was sexually abused by the defendant many years earlier, disclosed the abuse to friends three years after the abuse ceased and again four years later. Defense counsel’s strategy was to show the complainant was a “troubled teen” and inconsistencies in the statements were part of a “recent fabrication” defense:

​

Here, defendant argues that counsel’s failure to object to the testimony regarding the victim’s disclosures must have arisen from his ignorance or misunderstanding of the law on prompt outcry testimony and, thus, cannot be considered a matter of strategy. We disagree. While “it is generally improper to introduce testimony that the witness had previously made prior consistent statements” to bolster the witness’s credibility, the use of prior consistent statements is permitted to demonstrate a prompt outcry, rebut a charge of recent fabrication, or “to assist in ‘explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest'” … . “‘New York courts have routinely recognized that nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim’s reports of sexual abuse [does] not constitute improper bolstering [when] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process'”… .

A conclusion that the fact of the victim’s disclosures herein to the school counselor and detective would likely be admissible to “complete the narrative” was “consistent with [a conclusion that] a reasonably competent attorney” could make  … . … [C}ounsel was not ineffective for failure to make a motion that had little chance of success …. Instead of objecting to that testimony, counsel strategically chose to use the evidence to defendant’s advantage by exploring the substance of, and the circumstances surrounding, the disclosure in depth to support the defense of recent fabrication. People v Honghirun, 2017 NY Slip Op 04496, CtApp 6-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DELAYED DISCLOSURE OF SEXUAL ABUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)

, , ,

WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant City’s motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. The court held that whether the Big Apple map sufficiently identified the defective curb where plaintiff fell was a jury question and the verdict should stand:

​

“Although [t]he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident,’ where there are factual issues as to the precise location of the defect that caused a plaintiff’s fall and whether the defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury” … . The trial court improperly set aside the verdict against the City for lack of legally sufficient evidence that the City had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the curb at the corner where plaintiff indicated she fell … . A jury verdict may not be set aside for legal insufficiency unless there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . Here, it cannot be said that it was “utterly irrational for [the] jury to reach the result it has determined upon” … .

At trial, plaintiff testified that she tripped and fell, due to a defect at the corner of Madison Street and Rutgers Street. Plaintiff testified that she stepped off the curb with her left foot into the crosswalk on to Madison Street and that the tip of her right foot got caught on something on the ground, which caused her to fall and fracture her ankle. Plaintiff further testified that the curb where she tripped and fell was “separated from the sidewalk and raised.” Plaintiff also entered into evidence photographs of the street corner where she fell that depicted a broken, cracked and defective curb in front of 197 Madison Street. Another photograph entered into evidence showed that the address of “197 Madison St.” was clearly reflected on the H and M Deli storefront awning, located at the corner of the intersection where plaintiff fell. Counsel for the City further highlighted this point during re-cross-examination of plaintiff regarding the precise location of her fall, when counsel inquired, “In front of that H and M Deli?… The deli that is addressed 197 Madison, right?” To which plaintiff replied, “Yes.” Additionally, the Big Apple Map, which the City stipulated to receiving, denoted an “X” in front of 197-199 Madison Street, and, according to the Big Apple Map Legend, an “X” indicates a “broken, misaligned or uneven curb.”

​

… [W]hile it is true that the Big Apple Map did not have an “X” at the precise corner where plaintiff fell, the map did depict an “X” in front of the address of 197 Madison Street, which encompasses multiple storefronts within one building, stretching from the building on the corner towards the middle of the block. Foley v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04389, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, SLIP AND FALL, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, ,

BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW.

The First Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, over a two justice dissent, determined the detective’s mention of a drug offense for which defendant was represented by counsel during questioning on a homicide required suppression of the interrogation:

​

Although the reference to the drug charges on which defendant was represented was brief and flippant, it was not, in context, innocuous or discrete and fairly separable from the homicide investigation. The detective told defendant during the questioning that he knew defendant was involved in selling drugs at the location of the murder and that the killing was over a drug debt. The remarks regarding the pending drug case went to defendant’s alleged participation in the drug trade at the location of the homicide, the very activity out of which a motivation for killing the victim arose. Indeed, it succeeded in eliciting from defendant a response that may fairly be interpreted as incriminating himself in dealing drugs at the location, the alleged motivation and context out of which the homicide occurred. Accordingly, because questioning regarding the drug case on which defendant was represented by counsel was intertwined with questioning regarding the homicide, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed.

However, we find no other basis for suppression. As the dissent notes, the repeated comments made to defendant by the detective and his colleagues to the effect that defendant should “tell [his] side of the story” immediately because if he were to wait until trial, “[no] one is going to believe” him and he would be “charged with murder, not . . . manslaughter” did not vitiate the Miranda warnings defendant had received … . People v Silvagnoli, 2017 NY Slip Op 04392, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)

,

POLICE LOST A VIDEO WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE OF MATERIAL IMPORTANCE, FAILURE TO GIVE THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two judge dissenting opinion authored by Judge Wilson, determined defendant was entitled to an adverse inference charge with respect to the loss of video of a shooting, but that the failure to so charge the jury was harmless error under the facts. The defendant allegedly fired shots from across the street toward the entrance of a club. The video would have shown the victim and witnesses near the club entrance, but not the shooter:

Once the police collected the video, the People had an obligation to preserve it … .

Under these circumstances — where defendant acted with due diligence by requesting the evidence in discovery and the lost evidence was video footage of the murder defendant was charged with committing — it cannot be said that the evidence was not “reasonably likely to be of material importance” (Handy, 20 NY3d at 665). According to the trial testimony, the camera captured the moment when the victim was shot and the location of the two eyewitnesses at the time of the shooting. There was also testimony that the video contained footage of people going in and out of the club throughout the course of the night, making it at least possible that the video captured the earlier incident involving defendant and the bouncer — a key issue in the sequence of events. Contrary to the determination of the Appellate Division, a video of the shooting and of the eyewitnesses at or around the time of the murder is certainly “relevant to the case” … and is sufficient to satisfy the standard set out in Handy. Moreover, as in Handy, testimony concerning what appeared on the video came in large part from a witness whose own actions “created the need to speculate about its contents” … . Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to give an adverse inference instruction. People v Viruet, 2017 NY Slip Op 04386, CtApp 6-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE LOST A VIDEO WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE OF MATERIAL IMPORTANCE, FAILURE TO GIVE THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE LOST A VIDEO WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE OF MATERIAL IMPORTANCE, FAILURE TO GIVE THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE LOST A VIDEO WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE OF MATERIAL IMPORTANCE, FAILURE TO GIVE THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR)

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