You are here: / Evidence
,

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should have instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and Multiple Dwelling Law 78 in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed on her causing her to fall to the floor. There was evidence the door had malfunctioned the day before and a building representative was made aware of the malfunction. There was evidence the door would not have struck plaintiff absent a malfunction, and there was a log of incidents with the elevator which was erroneously excluded from evidence:

Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine which “permits the inference of negligence to be drawn from the circumstances of the occurrence” when a plaintiff can establish that (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; and (3) the event was not caused by the plaintiff’s actions … . “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 the defendant’s negligence” … .

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has frequently been applied in cases involving elevator malfunctions, including those involving doors which unexpectedly closed upon and injured plaintiffs while attempting to enter and exit an elevator … . * * *

The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the owner’s nondelegable duty under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78. A building owner’s duty under the statute extends to elevator maintenance and repair … . The court’s refusal to charge section 78 erroneously led the jury to believe that the owner’s negligence could only be predicated on its actual or constructive notice of an elevator problem. Barkley v Plaza Realty Invs. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01664, 1st Dept 3-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/EVIDENCE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR, MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/ELEVATORS (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)

,

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.

The Third Department determined that, although none of the three children testified in this child neglect case, the children’s statements about the domestic violence witnessed by them were admissible because the statements were cross-corroborated:

“While the mere repetition of an accusation by a child is insufficient to corroborate the child’s prior account of abuse or neglect” … , “independent statements by children requiring corroboration may corroborate each other” … . * * *

… [W]e find that, although none of the children testified, their out-of-court statements sufficiently cross-corroborated one another … . Matter of Annarae I. (Jennifer K.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01605, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)

, ,

A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing County Court, determined a conviction by guilty plea can be challenged on actual innocence grounds. The defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction both on her actual innocence claim and her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Defendant was a nurse who bathed a profoundly disabled child. After the bath blisters appeared on the child’s skin. At the time she stated she didn’t think the water was hot. In her motion to set aside, she alleged that she was convinced during interrogation that the water must have been too hot and pled guilty for that reason. Expert evidence indicates the blisters may not have been burns, but rather were a reaction to antibiotics. A biopsy was consistent with an allergic reaction:

Having determined that a defendant’s plea of guilty does not absolutely bar that defendant from maintaining a freestanding actual innocence claim pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), we address whether the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment based on actual innocence. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant is entitled to a hearing on her actual innocence claim. “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration”‘ by the court” … . Here, by submitting her affidavit, [defendant’s expert’s] affirmation, and other material, such as the skin biopsy pathology report, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing … . We also note that subsequent to the entry of the defendant’s plea of guilty, the civil action against the defendant and her former employer resulted in a jury verdict in their favor. We are mindful that the burden of proof in a civil trial is different than that in a criminal trial and that the evidence presented at each may differ. However, in the civil trial, the jury found that the defendant’s care was not a proximate cause of the child’s injuries, despite the fact that the defendant and her former employer were collaterally estopped from contesting liability. People v Tiger, 2017 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO SET ASIDE CONVICTION, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)

,

EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s knowledge he possessed cocaine. The defendant received a package containing cocaine addressed to a name (not his name) he used to sign for it and the package was addressed to a location which was not where defendant resided. The defendant was arrested before the package was opened:

“Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction” … . ” Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” … . ” In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts, supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference” … . People v Jimenez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01566, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW(EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/GRAND JURIES (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, POSSESSION OF (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should have been granted:

At the suppression hearing, a police detective testified that while the defendant was in custody, he administered Miranda warnings … and took the defendant’s written statement. On cross-examination, the detective admitted that 10 minutes prior to taking the defendant’s Mirandized written statement, he questioned the defendant without administering Miranda warnings. The written statement itself refers to incriminating statements made by the defendant during the earlier, pre-Miranda questioning. The Supreme Court denied suppression.

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events,’ there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . Here, the improper unwarned statements made by the defendant gave rise to a subsequent Mirandized written statement as part of a single continuous chain of events. Accordingly, both the oral statement and the written statement should have been suppressed. People v Ghee, 2017 NY Slip Op 01564, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this psychiatric malpractice case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert found fault in, inter alia, defendants’ failure to document suicide assessments. Plaintiffs’ decedent committed suicide shortly after the defendant psychiatrists, Roberts and Decker, saw her:

Plaintiffs submitted the factually specific affidavit of a psychiatrist who, relying upon the foregoing, opined that Roberts deviated from the minimum standard of care in failing to document a proper suicide risk assessment and then discharging decedent without ensuring that she obtain psychotherapy and medication management within two days … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ expert psychiatrist opined that Decker fell short of the minimum standard of care by failing to properly conduct and document a suicide risk assessment of decedent, who was experiencing triggering anxiety and untreated depression. The psychiatrist further opined that Decker departed from the minimum standard of care in placing medication adjustment and psychotherapy on hold in the expectation that a “severely compromised” person would provide more information on an inpatient treatment facility that she was curious about. Tkacheff v Roberts, 2017 NY Slip Op 01429, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/PSYCHIATRISTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)

, ,

DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge erred when the full circumstantial evidence jury instruction was not given. There was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the robber of the victim, who was sitting in his car at the time he was robbed. Blood matched to the defendant by DNA evidence was found on the handle of the door of the victim’s car. The Third Department also noted that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of acceptable commentary during summation when he told the jury the blood on the victim’s car belonged to the robber:

Contrary to the People’s assertion, this was not a case “where both direct and circumstantial evidence [were] employed to demonstrate . . . defendant’s culpability[,] thereby negating the need for the [requested] charge” … . While there indeed is no question — based upon the victim’s testimony and the photographic evidence contained in the record — that the charged crimes did in fact occur, the record makes clear — and the People readily concede — that there was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator. In this regard, while the People are correct that a DNA match “can provide strong evidence of a person’s presence at and participation in a criminal act” … , a defendant’s mere presence at the scene of the crime in close temporal proximity to its commission does not establish his or her identity as the perpetrator … . Simply put, where there is no direct evidence linking the defendant to the charged crimes, courts consistently have required that a circumstantial evidence charge be given … . As the People’s proof relative to the identity of the perpetrator here was entirely circumstantial, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the jury accordingly; moreover, as the proof against defendant was less than overwhelming, we cannot deem the court’s failure to grant the requested charge to be harmless error … . People v James, 2017 NY Slip Op 01409, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)

,

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY WEAKENED BUT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION; DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness (Abellman) with a prior inconsistent statement which did not contradict the People’s theory of prosecution and the trial judge should have instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence:

Abellman indicated in a written statement to investigators and testimony before the grand jury that defendant was his heroin supplier and that defendant’s heroin was stashed at the apartment. Abellman testified at trial, however, that he did not know defendant, had never bought drugs from defendant and did not recall ever having been to the apartment. * * * … [T]he People extensively questioned Abellman regarding his prior statements by asking if he recalled previously saying, among other things, that defendant supplied him with heroin and that he and defendant frequently went to the apartment to bag heroin and cocaine for sale.

While “[e]vidence of a prior contradictory statement may be received for the limited purpose of impeaching [a] witness’s credibility with respect to his or her testimony,” it is inadmissible where “the testimony of the witness ‘does not tend to disprove the position of the party who called him [or her] and elicited [the contradictory] testimony'” … . Abellman’s trial testimony falls into the latter category, as he did not call defendant’s connection to the heroin into question and only maintained that he had no knowledge of whatever connection there might be. This claimed lack of knowledge “merely failed to corroborate or bolster the [People]’s case” and did not affirmatively “contradict or disprove” evidence presented by them … . …

There was direct evidence of defendant’s dominion and control over the apartment [where the herein was found] but, as things ultimately stood, proof of his dominion and control over the heroin and related items was circumstantial. County Court was obliged to, but did not, give a circumstantial evidence charge to the jury under these circumstances … . People v Gaston, 2017 NY Slip Op 01411, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, EOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)

, ,

SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed sanctions on defendants in this medical malpractice action. The action was premised on the failure of a suture which had to be repaired by a subsequent surgery. The suture at issue was thrown away at the time of the second surgery. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendants threw away the suture with a culpable state of mind:

“A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind,’ and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense'” … . Where evidence has been intentionally or willfully destroyed, its relevance is presumed … . However, where evidence has been destroyed negligently, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must establish that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense … . * * *

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions against the defendants for the wilful spoilation and destruction of evidence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants were obligated to preserve the broken suture at the time of its destruction, that the suture was destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” and/or that the destroyed suture was relevant to the plaintiff’s claim … . In any event, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were on notice that the suture might be needed for future litigation … . Golan v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01342, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/SPOLIATION (SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)

,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s attempted robbery convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, covered in blood, approached the complainant’s car, asked to be taken to the hospital, and then tried to open the car door. That proof was insufficient to demonstrate larcenous intent, which is the intent to permanently deprive someone of his or her property:

“In order to sustain a conviction for robbery . . . the People must establish that defendant had the requisite intent—that is, larcenous intent. Larcenous intent means the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person'” … . The terms “deprive” and “appropriate” are specifically defined in Penal Law § 155.00(3) and (4), respectively, and connote a purpose “to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof” … . Thus, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny . . . is simply not satisfied by an intent temporarily to use property without the owner’s permission, or even an intent to appropriate outright the benefits of the property’s short-term use” … . People v Terranova, 2017 NY Slip Op 01390, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ROBBERY, NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/LARCENOUS INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ROBBERY, NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/ROBBERY (NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED)

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