You are here: / Evidence
,

THE MAJORITY HELD THAT DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY JUSTIFYING PURSUIT IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE DISSENT ARGUED FLIGHT ALONE DURING A LEVEL TWO ENCOUNTER DOES NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a detailed analysis of the De Bour criteria for a street stop, determined the initial encounter with defendant was lawful, the request for consent to frisk the defendant was lawful, and defendant’s flight provided reasonable suspicion of criminality justifying pursuit. The dissent agued the information available to the police never provided more than a level two right to inquire:

From the dissent:

I respectfully dissent inasmuch as I conclude that the pursuit of defendant was unlawful. At the time the two officers in question approached defendant, they mistakenly believed that they could properly detain defendant. The information they had before them, a general description of a suspect, gave them, as the majority agrees, a level two right to inquire … . In other words, defendant, at the time the officers approached him, had the right to be let alone.

The majority concludes that the degree of suspicion ripened from founded suspicion of criminality to reasonable suspicion upon defendant’s flight, thereby justifying the officers’ pursuit. ” ‘Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information, is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry’ ” … . A level two founded suspicion of criminality plus flight cannot equate to level three reasonable suspicion or else a defendant’s right to be let alone during a level two encounter will be rendered utterly meaningless. In my view, the majority ignores binding New York jurisprudence on this point in favor of a standard that erodes the rights that individuals maintain in a level two encounter. As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated, “an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them” … , and defendant, during the lawful level two encounter, and even upon the officers’ requests and his momentary acquiescence, retained his “right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 04317, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and the dissent for insight into when a defendant’s flight during a level two street stop will justify police pursuit.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined the questioning of defendant in his backyard and at the hospital constituted “a noncustodial investigatory inquiry” for which the Miranda warnings were not required. A comprehensive and detailed dissent argued the questioning was in fact “custodial” and the need for the Miranda warnings was triggered:

It is well settled that Miranda warnings must be given when a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation … . “In determining whether suppression is required, the court ‘should consider: (1) the amount of time the defendant spent with the police, (2) whether [defendant’s] freedom of action was restricted in any significant manner, (3) the location and atmosphere in which the defendant was questioned, (4) the degree of cooperation exhibited by the defendant, (5) whether [the defendant] was apprised of [their] constitutional rights, and (6) whether the questioning was investigatory or accusatory in nature’ ” … . Although no Miranda warnings were given to defendant while in his backyard or at the hospital, we conclude upon our review of the relevant factors that, under the circumstances here, the questioning by the police officers in each instance “constituted a noncustodial investigatory inquiry for which Miranda warnings were not required” … .

From the dissent:

In my view, each and every factor in determining whether defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes weighs in defendant’s favor. First, defendant was with the police in his backyard for almost an hour … . Second, defendant’s freedom of action, notwithstanding his leg injury, was restricted in a significant manner from the inception of the encounter. The encounter started with police officers yelling at defendant not to move, to get on the ground, and to let the officers see his hands at all times … . Moreover, defendant was informed multiple times that nothing would happen until the officers found the gun … . Next, the atmosphere in which defendant was questioned was highly intrusive because his backyard was full of officers searching for a gun … . It is apparent from the body camera footage that defendant did not cooperate with the officers because he never told them where the gun was, despite repeated accusatory questioning on the topic … . Despite the above, defendant was not advised of his Miranda warnings, and the officers’ questions to defendant were not merely investigatory in nature … . People v Casiano, 2025 NY Slip Op 04316, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult the dissent for some insight into when questioning by the police crosses the line from an investigatory inquiry to a custodial interrogation.

 

,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, ASKING DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR AND PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID “SAFETY REASONS” CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL DETENTION WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, determined the statements were the fruit of an unlawful detention at a traffic stop. A two-justice dissent argued the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the police had probable cause to arrest, and, therefore, a hearing should be held to determine whether the spontaneous statements made by the defendant at the police station were the fruit of the poisonous tree:

The Troopers … directed the driver and defendant to exit the vehicle so the Troopers could conduct an inventory search. Pursuant to standard procedure, the driver and defendant were placed in handcuffs. No other basis for placing the driver and defendant in handcuffs was offered by the People, and at the suppression hearing one of the Troopers testified that, in the City of Rochester, “for our safety reasons, every single time we have somebody exit the vehicle, we put them in handcuffs.” Before the inventory search was conducted, the vehicle’s driver began acting nervous, and when one of the Troopers inquired about her behavior, the driver stated that there was a gun in a bag in the vehicle. The Troopers retrieved and searched the bag, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant and the driver were then arrested and taken to the State Police station for processing, where defendant began talking to one of the Troopers and made spontaneous statements indicating that the gun belonged to him. * * *

We agree with defendant that by placing him in handcuffs after directing him to exit the vehicle, the Troopers transformed the traffic stop into a “forcible stop and detention” … , which “must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct . . . ; a need to transport the defendant for a showup procedure . . . ; a fear that the suspect may interfere with the execution of a search warrant . . . ; or a concern for officer safety” … . The People did not present evidence at the suppression hearing of ” ‘articulable facts’ from the encounter to establish reasonable suspicion that defendant posed any danger to the officers” … .

From the dissent:

As the majority concludes, two New York State Troopers unlawfully detained defendant in handcuffs following the traffic stop. At the time, the Troopers had no reason to believe that either defendant or the driver had committed a crime. But the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the driver informed the Troopers that there was a gun in the vehicle, thus providing the Troopers with probable cause to arrest both the driver and defendant for criminal possession of a weapon. Thus, at the time he made his statements, defendant was lawfully under arrest. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 04315, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Apparently the State Police consider the City of Rochester a high crime area and it is standard procedure for them, after a traffic stop in the city, to place the occupants of the car in handcuffs for “safety reasons.” The Fourth Department held that standard procedure constitutes an illegal detention.

 

, ,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE TOWN DEFENDANTS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE EITHER THAT THEY WERE NOT NEGLIGENT OR THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; BY FOCUSING ONLY ON PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE TOWN DEFENDANTS EFFECTIVELY ASSUMED THEY WERE NEGLIGENT; THE EVIDENCE THE DRIVER OF THE TOWN DUMP TRUCK WAS TRAVELING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TOWN’S FAVOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The town’s dump truck collied with a car which failed to yield the right–of-way at an intersection, veered into plaintiff’s decedent’s lane and collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s car. The town focused its argument on proximate cause, contending that the car which failed to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident. But, to be entitled to summary judgment in this context, the defendant must demonstrate it was not negligent. By focusing on proximate case, the town defendants “must assume, arguendo, that they were negligent:”

The Town defendants’ submissions established that LaRocca, who was driving a dump truck containing 10 tons of asphalt, did not adhere to an advisory traffic sign recommending that speed be reduced to 35 miles per hour prior to entering the intersection and further established that the tree line limited his view of cross traffic at the intersection. If a trier of fact were to determine that LaRocca’s speed was unreasonable under the existing conditions, the trier of fact could also conclude that LaRocca’s own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision … . * * *

By focusing on “sole proximate cause” in this common-law negligence action, the Town defendants overlook the fact that their burden on their motion was to establish “as a matter of law that [they were] not negligent or that, even if [they were] negligent, [their] negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . In other words, when moving for summary judgment in the negligence context and addressing only the issue of proximate cause, the Town defendants must effectively assume, arguendo, that they were negligent … . Inasmuch as the Town defendants did not do that here, we need not address their proximate cause argument. Gates v Simpson, 2025 NY Slip Op 04313, Fourth Dept 7-25-24

Practice Point: A defendant in a traffic accident case is entitled to summary judgment (1) if defendant was not negligent; or (2) even if defendant was negligent, defendant was not a proximate cause of the accident. In making a motion for summary judgment, if a defendant does not address defendant’s own negligence and focuses only on proximate cause, the defendant is “assuming” defendant was negligent.

 

,

THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action based upon a fall from a height of 10.5 to 20 inches. The court noted that, despite caselaw holding that a fall of 12 inches did not trigger the statute, there is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard. Plaintiff was standing on a stack of pallets to operate a masonry saw when a plank broke and he fell:

The fact that plaintiff fell from a height of approximately 10 ½ to 20 inches is not a bar to summary judgment because the height differential is not, as a matter of law, de minimis. While this Court has previously held that a height differential of at most 12 inches above the floor was insufficient to find an elevation-related risk … , the jurisprudence of this Court has since evolved, recently reiterating that “[t]here is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . We have repeatedly found violations of Labor Law § 240(1) predicated upon falls from similar heights as the one at bar (see Ferguson v Durst Pyramid, LLC, 178 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2019] [fall from inverted bucket]; see also Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [fall from temporary two-step wooden staircase]; Brown, 137 AD3d at 703-704 [fall through an opening in latticework rebar deck to plywood 12 to 18 inches below]; Arrasti, 60 AD3d at 583 [fall from ramp to the floor 18 inches below]; Haskins, 227 AD3d at 409 [fall into hole 2 to 2 ½ feet deep]). Furthermore, here, the senior superintendent of defendant Tishman Construction Corporation of New York admitted that the makeshift pallet structure was an “improper work platform” that was “against the most basic safety rules.” Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04298, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: There is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard which will trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here a fall of between 10.5 and 20 inches from a stack of pallets warranted summary judgment.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED STUDENT, WAS KNOCKED OVER BY ANOTHER STUDENT; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAS A DUTY TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE ITS STUDENTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL (THE YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC.) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant in this negligent supervision case. Plaintiff, a developmentally disable adult and a member of defendant Young Adult Institute, Inc. (YAI) was knocked over in a parking lot by a fellow student:

Programs such as YAI that provide services to developmentally disabled adults have a duty to adequately supervise such students in their care, “and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “‘[I]n determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated'” … . “‘Even if a breach of the duty of supervision is established, it must [also] be demonstrated that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained'” … . “‘The test for causation is whether under all the circumstances the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence'” … . Sclafani v Young Adult Inst., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04266, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: ​A provider of services to developmentally disabled adults has a duty to adequately supervise its students. Here there were questions of fact about whether supervision was adequate. Plaintiff student was knocked over by another student in a parking lot.

 

,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case on the ground the empty milk crate plaintiff tripped over was an “open and obvious” condition:

The accident occurred in the morning, during one of the plaintiff’s usual daytime shifts. As the plaintiff was walking in a hallway with carpeting she described as “reddish, green-ish . . . earth colors,” she tripped on an empty, black milk crate. By all accounts, the milk crate was an ordinary milk crate and it was not attached to the floor in any way … . * * *

… [T]he hotel defendants established … the empty milk crate was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and was not inherently dangerous under all the existing circumstances … . Raspberry v Best W. JFK Airport Hotel, 2025 NY Slip Op 04264, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: This decision presents a rare example of a condition which caused a trip and fall, i.e. an empty milk crate on a carpeted floor, deemed “open and obvious” as a matter of law.​

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The defendants’ property manager provided information only as to the building’s general cleaning and inspection practices, and the defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected before the plaintiff slipped and fell … . Johnson v 2525-2537 Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04239, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, a lack of constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition cannot be proved by evidence of general cleaning practices. There must be evidence the area was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall.

 

, ,

IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted because the expert affirmation submitted is support of the motion was “conclusory and not supported by the record:”

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants submitted, inter alia, the affirmation of an expert, whose opinions regarding the defendants’ alleged failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s aortic dissection after receipt of certain X-ray results and blood test results were conclusory and unsupported by the record … . That expert’s opinion regarding proximate cause was also conclusory and insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the parties moving for summary judgment … . In v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 04238, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: In a med mal case. an expert affirmation which is not supported by the record will be deemed “conclusory” and insufficient to support summary judgment.

 

,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT PLACEMENT OF THE AUTISTIC CHILD IN A “QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM” (QRTP) AS OPPOSED TO FOSTER CARE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support placement of the child, who is on the autism spectrum, in a “qualified residential treatment program” (QRTP) pursuant to the New York State Family First Prevention Service Act. The case gave the court the opportunity to decide an issue of first impression, i.e., which factors a court must consider in approving a child’s placement in a QRTP:

Here, since the qualified individual assessed the child and determined that placement in a QRTP would not be appropriate, the Family Court could approve the child’s placement in the QRTP only if it complied with the requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 1055-c(2)(c). Although the court found that QRTP placement was inconsistent with the child’s long-term permanency goal of adoption and that the child’s needs could be met in a less restrictive environment, the court nevertheless approved the child’s placement in a QRTP. The court, in essence, based this determination on a finding that there was not an alternative setting available that could meet the child’s needs in a less restrictive environment. * * *

However, the Family Court’s findings in this regard were not supported by the record. The court’s finding that there was not an alternative setting available was based on Loehr’s [the foster care supervisor’s] testimony that SCO [a foster-care agency] did not have any foster family homes available that could meet the child’s needs but that SCO was working to place the child in a foster family home for developmentally disabled children and was actively exploring families to adopt the child. On cross-examination, Loehr testified that SCO had not yet placed the child in a foster family home for children with developmental disabilities or a therapeutic foster family home through another agency because this would require a “step-up” conference, yet Loehr failed to explain why a “step-up” conference had not been held during the two months in which the child had been placed in the QRTP. This testimony was insufficient to support the court’s finding that there was not an alternative setting available that could meet the child’s needs in a less restrictive environment. Furthermore, Loehr’s testimony that the child had continuously lived in a foster family home setting from 2019 until January 2024, during which time his needs consistently had been met, calls into question the purported unavailability of any alternative, less restrictive settings. Matter of Joseph D.L. (Keisha T.M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04178, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for the criteria for placement of a child in a “qualified residential treatment program” (QRTP) as opposed to foster care. The criteria were not met here.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy