You are here: / Evidence
,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS, FATHER DEPRIVED OF ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND OBJECT TO EXHIBITS.

The Second Department determined father was entitled to a hearing on mother’s petition to enforce college expense provisions of a stipulation of settlement. The support magistrate considered affidavits and exhibits submitted after the hearing by mother, depriving father of his right to cross-examine and object:

Family Court Act § 433(a) requires that a respondent “shall be given opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses.” A hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it … . Here, the Support Magistrate erred in considering the mother’s affidavits and unverified financial information, rather than testimony supported by appropriate documentary evidence, in determining the mother’s petition … . As the father was deprived of the opportunity to rebut the mother’s affidavits and exhibits, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court … for a new hearing and determination on the mother’s petition … . Matter of Hezi v Hezi, 2016 NY Slip Op 05498, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

 

FAMILY LAW (SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS, FATHER DEPRIVED OF ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND OBJECT TO EXHIBITS)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY COURT, SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS, FATHER DEPRIVED OF ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND OBJECT TO EXHIBITS)

,

POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, essentially finding the police officer’s testimony incredible:

Here, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, particularly in light of objective facts—including the arresting officer’s failure to record the arrest in his memo book, his failure to call in the arrest, his failure to voucher the bandanas or masks, and the loss of the case folder containing the original of the defendant’s written statement and signed Miranda waiver—all of which cast doubt on the arresting officer’s credibility … . Moreover, the defendant testified at trial to a completely different version of events, including that he and his companion were not wearing masks or bandanas and he did not possess a gun or any marihuana. The defendant’s credibility was supported by the testimony of three character witnesses regarding his propensity for truthfulness, and no evidence was elicited to undermine the defendant’s credibility. Notably, the defendant had no prior history of arrests and had been gainfully employed by the same employer for seven years. Further, the defendant’s companion, who also had no history of prior arrests and had been gainfully employed for six years, testified to the same version of events as the defendant. Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15), we find that the rational inferences which can be drawn from the evidence presented at trial do not support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Oneill, 2016 NY Slip Op 05510, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

,

SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department determined the show up identification 30 minutes after the crime was not unduly suggestive and should not have been suppressed:

Here, the People met their initial burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure, which was conducted within approximately 30 minutes of the crime and within three or four blocks of the crime scene, was reasonable under the circumstances and lacked undue suggestiveness … . The defendants, in turn, failed to satisfy their ultimate burden of proving that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive and subject to suppression. Under the circumstances of this case, the mere presence of police, patrol cars, headlights, or other lighting at the scene of the identifications did not render the procedure unduly suggestive … . People v Huerta, 2016 NY Slip Op 05508, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SHOWUP (CRIMINAL LAW, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF ARRESTING OFFICER REVERSED.

The Third Department reversed, in the interest of justice, defendant’s conviction for assault of a police officer (Smith) because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime at the time defendant was detained. Defendant was involved in an argument with someone when the police approached and did not answer the officer’s questions:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we find no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded that Smith possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminality necessary to forcibly detain defendant. As defendant’s subsequent conduct in assaulting Smith “cannot validate an encounter that was not justified at its inception” … , the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Smith was injured while undertaking a lawful duty, and defendant’s conviction must be reversed … . People v Tucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 05400, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/REASONABLE SUSPICION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/STREET STOPS  (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/SUPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSUALT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/POLICE OFFICERS (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSUALT OF A POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/RESISTING ARREST (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)

, ,

EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Third Department determined statements made by and evidence collected from defendant after his request for counsel should have been suppressed in this vehicular homicide case. A new trial was ordered;

The People further conceded at oral argument that defendant invoked his constitutional and limited statutory right to counsel in response to those warnings and that, under the circumstances of this case, valid grounds existed to suppress his post-invocation statements and evidence related to the DRE [drug recognition evaluation], second breathalyzer and blood tests … . The erroneous admission of this evidence is reviewed under the harmless error doctrine, and such an error is considered harmless “when, in light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the jury’s verdict” … . The admissible evidence at trial established that defendant took twice his prescribed dosage of Clonazepam the morning of the accident and that he failed field sobriety tests administered at the scene. Nevertheless, inasmuch as defendant’s inadmissible statements, the recording of the DRE test and the evidence of the inadmissible test results themselves may well have contributed to the conviction, it cannot be said that the erroneous admission of that evidence was harmless … . People v Green, 2016 NY Slip Op 05399, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

,

SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS.

The Second Department determined criminal contempt charges rendered the indictment multiplicitous. The charge offense was a continuing offense and there was no interruption in the course of conduct:

An indictment is multiplicitous ” when a single offense is charged in more than one count'” … . In addition, “[a]n indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the indictment are multiplicitous of count three since those counts allege a continuous offense consisting of the defendant’s repeated telephone calls, over a nine-month period, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm the victim (see Penal Law § 215.51[b][iv]). The dates used by the prosecution to divide the counts did not establish that there was an interruption in the course of conduct … . People v Young, 2016 NY Slip Op 05395, 2nd Dept 7-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)/MULTIPLICITOUS INDICTMENT (SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)/INDICTMENTS (SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)/CONTINUING OFFENSE (SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)/CONTEMPT (SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS)

,

PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.

The Second Department determined the People had rebutted the presumption that unpreserved photo arrays were unduly suggestive:

… [A]lthough the People’s failure to preserve the photographic arrays displayed through the use of the photo manager system gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, the People nevertheless rebutted that presumption and sustained their initial burden of production through the testimony of the police officer who administered the photo identification procedure. The officer testified that the complainant’s daughter was shown computer-generated photo arrays shortly after the attack occurred. The officer further testified as to the specific information that was entered into the photo manager system, which included the perpetrator’s race and approximate age, height, and weight … . The officer testified that approximately 230 photographs fit the search criteria that was entered into the photo manager system and that these photographs were displayed in arrays consisting of six photographs at a time. Under the circumstances, the People sustained their initial burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness … . Furthermore, upon our review of the record of the hearing, we conclude that the defendant failed to sustain his ultimate burden of proving that the photo identification procedure was unduly suggestive … . People v Busano, 2016 NY Slip Op 05385, 2nd Dept 7-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/PHOTO ARRAYS (PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)

,

5 1/2 YEAR DELAY BEFORE INDICTMENT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED; HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS UNRELIABLE.

The First Department determined the People offered an adequate explanation of the 5 1/2 year delay between when defendant’s DNA was matched to evidence collected from the victims and the indictment. The court further determined the hearsay evidence of third-party culpability was properly excluded as unreliable:

In the intervening years, the prosecution had sought to obtain evidence to strengthen their case, which was based on circumstantial evidence, and the investigative delays were satisfactorily explained … . Furthermore, the resulting prejudice, if any, was minimal. While one potential witness, of questionable reliability, told police that two other men had committed the crimes, and that witness died during the period of delay at issue, the jury nevertheless heard testimony that one of those men had been arrested early in the case. Moreover, ‘a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process even though there may be some prejudice to defendant’ … .

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying, on the ground of lack of sufficient indicia of reliability, defendant’s motion to admit hearsay evidence of third-party culpability … . The declarant, the above-discussed man who died during the pendency of the investigation, contradicted himself in numerous statements … . Moreover, other evidence in the case directly undermined the reliability of his statements. People v Fleming, 2016 NY Slip Op 05334, 1st Dept 7-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (5 1/2 YEAR DELAY BEFORE INDICTMENT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED; HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS UNRELIABLE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS UNRELIABLE)/PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY (5 1/2 YEAR DELAY BEFORE INDICTMENT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED)/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS UNRELIABLE)

, , ,

PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent in two of the three cases, determined the evidence presented in Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 proceedings supported civil commitment of the three respondents as sex offenders with mental abnormalities resulting in “serious difficulty in controlling [sexual] conduct.”  The facts of each case were discussed in detail, and the determination in each case must be considered “fact specific.” However, in one case the diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) coupled with paraphilia NOS was deemed sufficient. In the other two cases, the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder coupled with ASPD and evidence of sexual crimes was deemed sufficient. The dissent would have found the proof of borderline personality disorder insufficient. The number of distinct issues discussed, and the depth of those discussions, cannot fairly be summarized here. Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 2016 NY Slip Op 05330, CtApp 7-5-16

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (ASPD) (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/PARAPHILA NOS  (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)/BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PROOF OF MENTAL ABNORMALITIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS CLARIFIED)

,

COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, reinstated three indictment counts which County Court had dismissed. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for sufficient evidence in grand jury proceedings and the court’s sufficiency-review powers. Here it was determined County Court improperly weighed the evidence:

“The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be sufficient to warrant conviction by a trial jury” … . “On a motion to dismiss, the reviewing court’s inquiry is confined to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the court is not to weigh the proof or examine its adequacy” … . ” In the context of the [g]rand [j]ury procedure, legally sufficient means prima facie, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … . Further, the fact “[t]hat other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant on this pleading stage inquiry, as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference” … .

Here, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , is legally sufficient to support the counts that were dismissed by County Court, and that the court improperly weighed the evidence … . People v Roth, 2016 NY Slip Op 05257, 4th Dept 7-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)/EVIDENCE (GRAND JURY, COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)/GRAND JURY (COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)

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