You are here: / Evidence
,

PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly excluded a purported copy of a guaranty from evidence and properly dismissed the complaint which sought enforcement of the guaranty. The purported original guaranty was incomplete and was withdrawn as evidence:

Supreme Court properly determined that the proffered copy of the guaranty was inadmissible as secondary evidence of the terms of the guaranty or pursuant to CPLR 4539(a). Under an exception to the best evidence rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . Once the absence of an original document is excused, all competent secondary evidence is generally admissible to prove its contents … . However, the proponent of the secondary evidence has a “heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … . “Thus, as a threshold matter, the trial court must be satisfied that the proffered evidence is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original’ before ruling on its admissibility” … .

Here, even if the plaintiff sufficiently explained the unavailability of the original guaranty … , it failed to meet its heavy burden of establishing that the proffered copy was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original … . The plaintiff’s principal was not present when the original guaranty was executed, and thus could not testify as to whether the original guaranty was similarly missing a portion of paragraph 4, while Gluck testified that the guaranty she executed contained complete paragraphs. Further, the copy was not satisfactorily identified as a copy of the guaranty so as to be admissible as a reproduction pursuant to CPLR 4539(a) … . 76-82 St. Marks, LLC v Gluck, 2017 NY Slip Op 01329, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)/GUARANTY (EVIDENCE, PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The dissent found the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions too speculative to raise a question of fact. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

In sum, defendants submitted expert affirmations that established prima facie that they did not depart from good and accepted medical practice or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s]  injuries … . In opposition, plaintiffs submitted expert opinions that raised issues of fact as to the following alleged departures: the premature release of [plaintiff] from postanesthesia care unit, the failure to identify and treat his overdose or adverse reaction to morphine, and the failure to timely respond to his cardiorespiratory arrest … . Severino v Weller, 2017 NY Slip Op 01325, 1st Dept 2-21-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

, , ,

WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the trial court should not have applied the collateral estoppel doctrine to preclude the People from introducing evidence the defendant used a firearm to threaten the robbery victim. The grand jury dismissed the robbery first count and indicted on robbery third. The trial court reasoned that the grand jury necessarily found the defendant did not have a weapon by refusing to indict on robbery first. The First Department held: (1) the article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition (brought by the People against the trial judge) was the appropriate remedy; and (2) the trial judge is prohibited from enforcing the order precluding evidence of the defendant’s possession of a weapon:

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, only available to prevent a court from either acting without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it otherwise has jurisdiction … . Prohibition is not available to review mere errors of law, even when the errors are truly egregious … .

“Although the distinction between legal errors and actions made in excess of authority is not always easily made, abuses of power may be identified by their impact on the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself” … . The trial court’s ruling in this case was an error that affected the entire proceeding and thus constituted an excess of the court’s authority. The ruling prevents the People from proving the element of force required under third degree robbery because the gun was the only evidence of force that was presented to the grand jury. The People cannot present different facts at trial in support of the indictment … . Although the court did not actually dismiss the third degree robbery charge, the charge cannot withstand a claim of legal insufficiency, because there are no other facts on which the prosecution can rely to prove force, a necessary element of the charge. * * *

A writ of prohibition will lie where a trial court’s erroneous ruling affects the proceeding in a conclusive manner, by terminating the case … . At bar, although the ruling did not actually terminate the case, it effectively terminated the ability of the People to prosecute the highest count in the indictment … . We therefore find that the court’s ruling is reviewable by way of a writ of prohibition. * * *

The Court of Appeals has recognized … that for policy reasons collateral estoppel is not as liberally applied in criminal prosecutions as in civil actions … . The rigid application of collateral estoppel must yield to society’s preeminent and overwhelming interest in ensuring the correctness of determinations of guilt or innocence … . “Thus, if … collateral estoppel ‘cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied'” … . Matter of Clark v Newbauer, 2017 NY Slip Op 01326, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/PROHIBITION (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)

,

MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.

The First Department determined the defendant’s statement that he lived in the apartment which was searched and where contraband was found did not require Miranda warnings or a 710.30 notice:

Neither Miranda warnings nor CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice was required with respect to defendant’s statement, in response to a detective’s pedigree question, that his residence was the apartment where the police had executed a search warrant and discovered contraband. The detective’s routine administrative questioning was not designed to elicit an incriminating response … , even if the answer was reasonably likely to be incriminating … . People v Martin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01309, 1st Dep 2-21-17

 

,

FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the February 5th statement, as well as the first portion of the July 11th videotaped statement by the defendant, despite the suppression of statements made five or six hours earlier on July 11. The videotaped statement was deemed sufficiently attenuated from the inadmissible statements:

Defendant’s videotaped statement was made approximately five hours after the initial Miranda violation. Much shorter breaks have been found sufficient to dissipate the taint of a Miranda violation … . In addition, “defendant had demonstrated an unqualified desire to speak” … , seemed alert and relaxed in the video, and did not appear nervous or intimidated. Indeed, he was even “laughing on occasion.”

Defendant had been Mirandized after his first encounter with the police concerning the case, on February 5. Further, the ADA — who had not participated in the earlier interrogation — was the sole questioner in the admitted portion of the video. Although two of the detectives who had conducted the earlier interrogation were present, they did not participate in the questioning in the admitted segment. Notably, the court suppressed any references to the suppressed statements made earlier on July 11th, as well as the later portion of the video in which the detectives participated in questioning … . People v Richardson, 2017 NY Slip Op 01304, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/MIRANDA VIOLATION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)

,

THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s robbery second and grand larceny fourth convictions. Defendant told the victim (Diaz) she would have him beaten up if he didn’t give her $20. The court held the victim had been threatened with immediate use of force within the meaning of the statute:

With respect to defendant’s robbery conviction, the evidence demonstrates that defendant threatened Diaz with the immediate use of physical force. Pursuant to Penal Law § 160.00(1), a person is guilty of robbery “when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of . . . [p]reventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking.” However, “[t]he statute does not require the use of any words whatsoever, but merely that there be a threat, whatever its nature, of the immediate use of physical force” … . There is also no requirement that a weapon be displayed or that the victim be physically injured to demonstrate that there was a threat of immediate physical force … . Further, the threat of the immediate use of force may be demonstrated by “a chain of actions on the part of [the] defendant” … .

Diaz testified that he gave defendant the $20 because he was “scared” after defendant … prevented him from leaving and defendant explicitly threatened him that if he did not comply, her boyfriend would beat him up. Defendant then went to speak to a man who gestured that he was going to call someone … . People v Villanueva, 2017 NY Slip Op 01299, 1st Dept 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY)/ROBBERY (THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY)/THREAT (ROBBERY, THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY)/IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE (ROBBERY, THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY)

,

VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the identification testimony by the assault victim was credible, despite a period of unconsciousness, dizziness and inconsistencies:

[The] grounds for undercutting one-witness identifications [in other cases] are not comparable to the dizziness and loss of consciousness caused by the subject assault, and the limited nature of the complainant’s two opportunities to look directly at his attacker. Our system of criminal justice relies on victims of violence identifying their attackers when they are able to do so. It would be ironic indeed if the severity of an attack and the resulting injuries were to prompt courts to treat the subsequent identification as unworthy of belief, despite the complainant’s certainty. Of course, the defense is entitled to question an identification based on the complainant’s compromised condition caused by the attack. However, that argument did not sway the jury here, and upon our review of the evidence at trial, it does not appear that the complainant was unable to make an identification.

Any inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were minor, possibly due to limitations in his English skills, and did not undermine his overall credibility. People v Kahson B., 2017 NY Slip Op 01265, 1st Dept 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES)

, ,

STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.

The First Department determined the striking of defendants’ answers was the proper remedy for spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff was injured on a staircase. The staircase was removed and destroyed days before a scheduled inspection:

Plaintiffs’ pre-action service of preservation letters on the daycare, the initiation of this action, and the issuance of the preliminary conference order, placed defendants on notice of the need to preserve the staircase. The staircase was removed and destroyed in November 2013, days before the scheduled court-ordered inspection. As found by the motion court, “[I]t is clear that the individual defendants destroyed the stairs in question in violation of the order of th[e] court, knowing that plaintiff’s inspection was to take place a few days later.”

The intentional destruction of the staircase, key physical evidence, severely prejudices plaintiffs’ ability to prove their case, and warrants the extreme sanction of striking defendants’ answers … . The record contains no evidence that photographs depicting the staircase exist. Nor is this a case where plaintiffs sat on their rights … . Rookwood v Busy B’s Child Care Daycare Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01281, 1st Dept 2-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/SPOLIATION (STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE, SPOLIATION, STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

,

TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The Court of Appeals determined the testimony of an officer (Mercado) who was present throughout the DWI breathalyzer test process administered by another officer (Harriman) did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Harriman had retired and moved out of state by the time of defendant’s trial:

The only step in the testing process that the Appellate Term found Mercado did not personally perform or observe, and the sole stated basis for that court finding a Confrontation Clause violation, was verification of the simulator solution temperature as displayed on the machine. Inasmuch as the written 13-step checklist completed by Harriman was not admitted into evidence, no testimonial statement by a nontestifying witness concerning the temperature — or any aspect of the testing procedure — was used against defendant. Thus, any argument as to Mercado’s failure to observe the temperature reading would merely relate to whether there was a proper foundation for his testimony, which would not implicate a Confrontation Clause violation … . However, to the extent that the Appellate Term based its decision on the failure of an “essential” step in the testing procedure, the trial record contradicts that court’s conclusion that there was an absence of evidence that the machine will shut itself down and fail to perform the test if the temperature is outside the proper range … . * * *

Mercado observed Harriman perform all of the steps on the checklist and saw the breathalyzer machine print out the results. Based upon his personal observations, Mercado — as a trained and certified operator who was present for the entire testing protocol — was a suitable witness to testify about the testing procedure and results in defendant’s test. Inasmuch as Mercado testified as to his own observations, not as a surrogate for Harriman, there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Any alleged irregularities concerning the testing procedure would relate to the weight of Mercado’s testimony, not its admissibility … . People v Hao Lin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DWI, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (BREATHALYZER, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/BREATHALYZER (DWI, (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

,

BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 in serving the 90-day notice. The documents submitted by plaintiff’s employee (Gantner) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service … or proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Gantner’s affidavit and attached business records were not sufficient to establish that the notices were sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. While mailing may be proven by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay under CPLR 4518 … , here, Gantner did not aver that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Therefore, Gantner’s unsubstantiated and conclusory statements were insufficient to establish that the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pappas, 2017 NY Slip Op 01177. 2nd Dept 2-15-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)

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