You are here: / Evidence
,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE.

The Second Department determined County Court should not have dismissed the indictment upon reading the grand jury minutes, on a ground not raised by the defendant, without giving the People the opportunity to address it. County Court found that the evidence presented to the grand jury warranted the agency-defense instruction, which was not given:

The County Court erred in dismissing the indictment based upon a specific defect in the grand jury proceedings not raised by the defendant, without affording the People notice of the specific defect and an opportunity to respond (see CPL 210.45[1]…). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People did not waive their right to notice and an opportunity to be heard by failing to move to reargue the court’s order … . Furthermore, upon our review of the record, we find that no reasonable view of the evidence presented to the grand jury warrants an instruction on the defense of agency … . The defendant’s actions were consistent with that of a “steerer,” and not a mere extension of the buyer … . In addition, because the defendant did not testify before the grand jury, no evidence was presented indicating that he did not stand to profit from the sale or that he had no independent desire to promote the transaction … . People v Cruz, 2016 NY Slip Op 07673, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AGENCY DEFENSE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE)/GRAND JURY (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE)/AGENCY DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE)

, ,

QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s statements in connection with a murder charge were made in violation of his right to counsel. A new trial was ordered. At the time defendant was questioned about a robbery and a murder (the “gas station shooting”), he was represented on a marijuana charge. The robbery and murder occurred at different times and places, but defendant allegedly was the getaway driver for both. The trial court ruled the statements related to the robbery were made in violation of defendant’s right to counsel but the statements related to the murder were admissible. The Second Department noted that it is statutorily prohibited from revisiting the trial court’s suppression of the robbery statements. Since the Second Department concluded that the robbery and murder interrogations were necessarily intertwined, the murder statements should have been suppressed:

The Court of Appeals has recognized two categories of cases in which the attachment of counsel on one crime may preclude the police from interrogating a suspect on the subject of another crime. In People v Cohen (90 NY2d 632), the Court of Appeals stated that “where the two criminal matters are so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel[,] . . . interrogation on the unrepresented crime is prohibited even in the absence of direct questioning regarding the crime on which counsel had appeared” … . With respect to the second category, the Court of Appeals has stated that “a statement may be subject to suppression where impermissible questioning on a represented charge was, when viewed as an integrated whole, not fairly separable from otherwise permissible questioning on the unrepresented matter and was, in fact, purposely exploited to aid in securing inculpatory admissions on the [unrepresented matter]” … . * * *

In light of the determination that the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when he was questioned with regard to the robbery charges, we further find that his right to counsel was violated by questioning on the factually interwoven homicide matter. Indeed, the robbery and the murder cases were so closely related that questioning about the gas station shooting “would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding” the robbery … . People v Henry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07676, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE.

The First Department determined the alleged victim of an assault was properly allowed to testify by Skype from Egypt. The victim had been prohibited from returning to the US from Egypt and the prosecutor had done everything possible to facilitate his return:

We conclude that, given the unusual circumstances of this case, and the prosecutor’s good faith, the People made the specific, individualized showing necessary to justify remote video testimony. The Confrontation Clause’s general guarantee of face-to-face testimony is not absolute … . Video testimony is permissible “provided there is an individualized determination that denial of physical, face-to-face confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured” (People v Wrotten, 14 NY3d 33…). Moreover, in Wrotten, the Court of Appeals recognized that video testimony could be employed in circumstances other than those involving a vulnerable child witness or a witness who was too ill to appear in court, as was the case in Wrotten (id. at 39-40).

Defendant concedes that the two-way video testimony at issue “preserve[d] the essential safeguards of testimonial reliability” … . The dispositive question is whether the testimony was ” necessary to further an important public policy'” … , which, in this case, is “the public policy of justly resolving criminal cases” … , a showing that must be made by clear and convincing evidence … . People v Giurdanella, 2016 NY Slip Op 07577, 1st Dept 11-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)/VIDEO, REMOTE TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE/SKYPE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE)

,

RECORDED STATEMENTS MADE TO THE MOTHER OF DEFENDANT’S CHILDREN, WHO WAS ACTING AS A POLICE AGENT AT THE TIME THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, REQUIRED THE REOPENING OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING, CASE REMITTED.

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a reopened Huntley hearing concerning recorded statements made by the defendant to the mother of defendant’s children, who was acting as a police agent at the time the statements were made. The statements were under a protective order until two weeks before the trial. The defendant was convicted of the murder of a man he mistakenly believed was having a relationship with the mother of his children:

… [T]he court erred in failing to reopen the Huntley hearing at defense counsel’s request with respect to recorded statements that he made to an agent of the police (see CPL 60.45 [2] [b] [i], [ii]), i.e., the mother of his children, which were the subject of a protective order until approximately two weeks before trial. Because the admission of those statements at trial cannot be deemed harmless error … , we hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to reopen the Huntley hearing with respect to those recorded statements … . People v Mitchell, 2016 NY Slip Op 07543, 4th Dept 11-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RECORDED STATEMENTS MADE TO THE MOTHER OF DEFENDANT’S CHILDREN, WHO WAS ACTING AS A POLICE AGENT AT THE TIME THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, REQUIRED THE REOPENING OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORDED STATEMENTS MADE TO THE MOTHER OF DEFENDANT’S CHILDREN, WHO WAS ACTING AS A POLICE AGENT AT THE TIME THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, REQUIRED THE REOPENING OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING)/HUNTLEY HEARING (RECORDED STATEMENTS MADE TO THE MOTHER OF DEFENDANT’S CHILDREN, WHO WAS ACTING AS A POLICE AGENT AT THE TIME THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, REQUIRED THE REOPENING OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING)

,

STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE 710.30 NOTICE, AND WHICH PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined a statement alleged to have been made during a search, but which was not part of the 710.30 notice, should not have been admitted at trial. The defendant was charged and convicted of constructive possession of drugs found in the searched residence. The statement indicated where defendant’s “own room was.” There was little or no other evidence defendant lived at the searched residence. The court rejected the argument that the statement was “pedigree information” and further rejected the argument that the search consent form, signed by the defendant, was an admission of his dominion and control of the residence:

The People served on defendant a CPL 710.30 notice of their intent to offer defendant’s admissions as evidence at trial and attached a police report to the notice. The police report referenced defendant’s statement to the deputies, during the search, that one of the bedrooms belonged to another person. At trial, however, the court permitted an investigator to testify that defendant “explained where his [own] room was,” referring to another of the bedrooms. Inasmuch as the CPL 710.30 notice did not cover that statement, the court’s ruling on that point was error (see CPL 710.30 [1]…). That error permitted the court to conclude that defendant was an occupant of the residence and, consequently, to find that defendant had constructive possession of the drugs found therein … . People v Buza, 2016 NY Slip Op 07423, 4th Dept 11-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE 710.30 NOTICE, AND WHICH PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE)/710.30 NOTICE (STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE 710.30 NOTICE, AND WHICH PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE)

, ,

EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

The First Department, in remanding for a new trial, determined (1) the expert disclosure notice provided by the defense was sufficient, and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed, during the trial, to submit an expert disclosure notice for a rebuttal witness.  Plaintiff alleged his foot was run over by a bus:

After the defense rested, plaintiff’s attorney sought permission to call two rebuttal witnesses. He submitted a CPLR 3101(d)(1) notice for an expert in biomechanical medicine, arguing that the disclosure notice for Dr. Kurtz had provided no indication that the doctor’s opinion was based on the lack of tread marks or injury to the metatarsals and ankle. He argued that the notice’s insufficiency had not allowed him to prepare an expert witness to address these issues directly. His proposed expert would demonstrate, by use of an anatomical model of a foot, that plaintiff’s foot could have been positioned after he fell in such a manner that when the bus wheel rolled over his foot, his ankle and upper foot would not have been injured as Dr. Kurtz claimed. The court denied his request based on the timing of the notice and its reasoning that no rebuttal was needed. …

We find that Dr. Kurtz’s CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure notice was legally sufficient; it provided plaintiff with notice that the doctor would question whether a bus would have caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff. It is improper for a party to request the facts and opinions upon which another party’s expert is expected to testify … . * * *

… [N]otwithstanding the delay by plaintiff in providing a CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure for his medical expert, the trial court, in the interest of justice, should have permitted the medical expert to testify in rebuttal. The court had allowed Dr. Kurtz to opine that there were inconsistencies between the claim of how the accident occurred and the resulting injuries, and although the testimony was not in his expertise, it was heard by the jury and opened the door to the necessity for plaintiff to produce a medical expert to attempt to rebut those opinions. Tate-Mitros v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07394, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/REBUTTAL EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff loan service did not demonstrate standing to bring this foreclosure action. The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. In addition, an affidavit submitted with the reply papers could not be considered:

…[T]he plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jaclyn Holloway, an assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar). Holloway alleged that, after the action was commenced, the plaintiff delivered the note to NationStar. She alleged that, “pursuant to the business records of [the plaintiff],” the plaintiff had physical possession of the note when it commenced the action. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Holloway under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) since Holloway did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff … . Consequently, Holloway’s allegations based on those records were inadmissible … , and, therefore, insufficient to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie burden to establish its standing … .

The plaintiff could not rely on the affidavit of its vice president to meet its prima facie burden since the affidavit was improperly submitted for the first time in its reply papers … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 2016 NY Slip Op 07154, 2nd Dept 11-2-16

 

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/REPLY PAPERS (PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/

,

DEFENDANT PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE AT THE SCENE OF HIS ARREST; SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE NO MENTION OF AN ATTACK ON DEFENDANT BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH DEFENDANT DESCRIBED AT TRIAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, with a concurring opinion, determined defendant was properly impeached with a spontaneous statement made to police at the time of his arrest for robbing the complainant. At trial, defendant testified the complainant had struck him with a board. However, the alleged attack with a board was not mentioned in defendant’s spontaneous statement at the scene:

Here … defendant’s statement was not the product of interrogation, but was made spontaneously at the scene, prior to the issuance of Miranda warnings. In addition, the substance of defendant’s spontaneous statement was not inculpatory, but a description of the complainant’s conduct and was made to inform the police when the information was timely to their decision as to whether to arrest defendant or complainant. Even more significant, defendant admitted in his direct testimony that he was not silent and that he had given the police his version of complainant’s misconduct at the scene. Consequently, the credibility of his initial spontaneous statement was legitimately called into question by his trial testimony.

Here, defendant elected to provide some explanation of what happened at the scene, and it was unnatural to have omitted the significantly more favorable version of events to which he testified at trial — that complainant had assaulted him. “[D]efendant’s conspicuous omission of these exculpatory facts in his voluntary statement to police tended to show that his trial testimony was a recent fabrication” … . People v Chery, 2016 NY Slip Op 07109, CtApp 11-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE AT THE SCENE OF HIS ARREST; SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE NO MENTION OF AN ATTACK ON DEFENDANT BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH DEFENDANT DESCRIBED AT TRIAL)/EVIDENCE DEFENDANT PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE AT THE SCENE OF HIS ARREST; SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE NO MENTION OF AN ATTACK ON DEFENDANT BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH DEFENDANT DESCRIBED AT TRIAL/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE AT THE SCENE OF HIS ARREST; SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE NO MENTION OF AN ATTACK ON DEFENDANT BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH DEFENDANT DESCRIBED AT TRIAL)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, IMPEACHMENT, DEFENDANT PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE AT THE SCENE OF HIS ARREST; SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE NO MENTION OF AN ATTACK ON DEFENDANT BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH DEFENDANT DESCRIBED AT TRIAL)

,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search:

The critical issue in this case is whether the officers’ search of the car, which was conducted back at the police district headquarters and not at the arrest location, was a legitimate inventory search. We conclude that it was. The People introduced a copy of the relevant patrol guide section outlining the procedures for inventory searches. Everything was removed from the car, under the direction of a sergeant, and even items such as nail clippers were vouchered. A contemporaneous list was made of the items that were removed, and the list was introduced at the hearing. Copies of property clerk invoices also were admitted in evidence at the hearing. The testimony at the hearing established that the officers did not exercise discretion in removing items from the car, and that the search was not a ruse to recover incriminating evidence … . People v Lee, 2016 NY Slip Op 07081, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/INVENTORY SEARCH (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, determined plaintiffs’ experts had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a Frye hearing in this medical malpractice case. The plaintiffs’ baby suffered neurological damage caused by a rapidly growing tumor. The question tackled by the experts was whether the tumor was detectable prior to birth (ultrasound). The majority concluded plaintiffs’ experts had presented sufficient evidence that the tumor may have been detectable to warrant a hearing. The dissent argued the evidence presented by the plaintiffs’ experts was not sufficient to raise a question of fact:

Defendant’s experts established a prima facie case that the ultrasound studies were properly interpreted and that none of defendant’s acts or omissions caused the infant plaintiff’s alleged injuries. In light of plaintiffs’ expert opinions to the contrary, however, we cannot hold on the record presented to us that the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts are not generally accepted within the medical and scientific communities. Accordingly, the motion court properly set the matter down for a Frye hearing … to determine (1) whether it is generally accepted in the medical and scientific communities that a physician may offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to when a tumor such as the infant plaintiff’s tumor would have been detectable by ultrasound examination; and (2) whether it was possible to use any formula, including a doubling formula, to assess whether a neuroblastoma would have been detectable at the ultrasound of the infant plaintiff performed at 30.9 weeks … .

The dissent’s assertion that the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts were “speculative” and “unsupported by the record” puts the cart before the horse. As noted above, plaintiffs’ experts based their opinions partially on peer-reviewed, published articles stating that routine prenatal sonography had detected fetal neuroblastomas. Whether the information conveyed in these articles has gained general acceptance in the medical community, and thus provides support for the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, is precisely the topic of a Frye hearing. Sepulveda v Dayal, 2016 NY Slip Op 06949, 1st Dept 10-25-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)

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