You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff created an issue of fact in this rear-end collision case by submitting a police report indicating defendant driver slid on snow and ice. The court noted plaintiff waived any objection to the admissibility of the report by submitting it in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment:

In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report. The police accident report indicated that the defendant driver stated that snow and ice on the road caused him to hit the plaintiff's vehicle, which demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for his actions … . Since the plaintiff submitted the police report in support of his motion, he waived any objection to its admissibility … . Orcel v Haber, 2016 NY Slip Op 04700, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/EVIDENCE (POLICE REPORT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)

,

EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support defendant's conviction for permitting children to enter or remain in a place of drug activity (unlawfully dealing with a child). Defendant was an occasional guest in the apartment where mother and her children resided. The Court of Appeals held that the People did not demonstrate a relationship between defendant and the children or the apartment such that defendant could control whether children were allowed to enter or remain:

… [W]e hold that to establish that a defendant permitted a child to enter or remain in a particular place, premises, or establishment, under Penal Law § 260.20 (1), the People must show that defendant's relation to the child or to the place, premises or establishment was of such a kind that defendant had some ability to control the child, so as to permit the child to enter or remain in the place in question. Moreover, a mere ability to notify authorities does not constitute such ability to control, or the statute might apply to anyone who comes into contact with a child entering or remaining in one of the proscribed places. People v Berry, 2016 NY Slip Op 04656, CtApp 6-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to an adverser inference jury instruction based upon the failure to preserve surveillance videos:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to give an adverse inference charge based on the People's failure to preserve surveillance tapes … . Defendant used reasonable diligence in requesting those tapes, which captured “evidence that [was] reasonably likely to be of material importance” …, i.e., a video in the area where the crime occurred, from cameras operated by the City of Rochester Police Department.

We respectfully disagree with our concurring colleague that the State's duty to preserve surveillance videos is not triggered until a request has been made by the defendant. People v Butler, 2016 NY Slip Op 04512, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/EVIDENCE (FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)

,

RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY.

The Fourth Department, remitting the case, determined a Rodriguez hearing was necessary to determine whether a witness’s single photo identification of the defendant was confirmatory:

We agree with defendant that, during the suppression hearing, the court erred in precluding defendant from cross-examining the police investigator on the issue whether “Witness #1” was sufficiently familiar with defendant in order to render the single photo identification of defendant by that witness “merely confirmatory” … . Although the court conducted a Wade hearing, which ordinarily eliminates the need for a Rodriguez hearing … , we conclude that the court’s error during the suppression hearing renders a Rodriguez hearing necessary in this case … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether the identification by the subject witness was truly confirmatory in nature … and, if the court determines that the identification was not confirmatory, it must further determine whether the single photo identification procedure employed with the subject witness was unduly suggestive … . People v Hoffman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04508, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)

,

ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction in this 30-year-old domestic murder case, determined hearsay evidence of threats allegedly made by the defendant against the victim were improperly admitted for the truth of the matters asserted. While evidence of threats made to the victim may be admissible under Molineux, such evidence must be in admissible form:

Citing Molineux and other like cases, including People v Alvino (71 NY2d 233), the People argue that evidence of defendant's prior threats and physical abuse of the victim were highly relevant for various nonhearsay purposes, such as establishing background information, revealing the state of mind of the victim and defendant, and demonstrating his motive and intent to kill the victim. As defendant correctly points out, however, there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay. It may be true that evidence that defendant beat and threatened to kill the victim is admissible under a Molineux theory, but such evidence must still be in admissible form. For instance, a witness could testify that he or she witnessed defendant assault the victim, or heard defendant threaten the victim. That is not hearsay. It is hearsay, however, for a witness to testify that someone else told him or her that defendant beat or threatened the victim. People v Meadow, 2016 NY Slip Op 04505, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a Wade hearing to determine the reliability, as opposed to the suggestiveness, of an identification:

Here, following the drug transaction, the undercover officer did not observe defendant again until the trial, which was approximately a year and a half after the transaction. That lapse of time is in stark contrast to the typical situation where an undercover officer identifies the arrestee at the police station contemporaneously with the drug transaction … .

While we recognize that a “Wade hearing” is often linked, nearly exclusively, with the concept of “suggestiveness,” we conclude that a defendant is entitled to CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice and the opportunity to move to suppress identification testimony pursuant to CPL 710.60 in order to test the reliability of such testimony … . While “suggestiveness” may play an important role in the reliability analysis, it is not the exclusive criterion. The list of criteria involved in making a reliability determination may include, but is not limited to: the lapse of time between the criminal transaction and the arrest, the opportunity to observe the suspect during the transaction, the duration of the interaction, and the facts and circumstances of the interaction with the suspect. It is well settled that “the mere labelling of an identification as confirmatory' will not obviate the need for Wade hearings. Case-by-case analyses of the facts and circumstances in each case remains necessary” … . “Comprehensive analysis, not superficial categorization, ultimately governs” … . People v Reeves, 2016 NY Slip Op 04502, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/WADE HEARING DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)

, ,

PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction, determined preclusion of defendant’s medical evidence in this driving while intoxicated case was an abuse of discretion and the prosecutor’s cross-examination defendant and summation were improper:

“Preclusion of evidence is a severe sanction, not to be employed unless any potential prejudice arising from the failure to disclose cannot be cured by a lesser sanction” … . … Here, County Court’s own inquiry readily identified measures to alleviate any prejudice to the People … . Since a less drastic remedy was readily available, we conclude that the outright preclusion of this evidence was an abuse of discretion. …

… During cross-examination, the prosecutor utilized documentation provided by the defense to question defendant as to his winning an Iron Man … and his being recommended for enrollment in the US Army Ranger School … . Certainly this questioning was an accurate portrayal of defendant’s physical fitness prior to being injured during his military service and fair game to a point as to whether defendant was capable of performing the field sobriety tests. The portrayal, however, disregards defendant’s actual medical condition as shown in the precluded medical records. This discrepancy came to a head during summation, where the prosecutor stated, “I just didn’t really know what to make” of defendant’s claimed impairments. She continued, “I’m surprised” given defendant’s Iron Man award, and concluded, “I don’t understand what happened . . . when he couldn’t perform a standardized field sobriety test. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

A prosecutor may not, even during summation, express his or her personal opinion challenging the veracity of the evidence … . To express personal surprise as to defendant’s claim of incapacity, while in possession of defendant’s medical records, was disingenuous and improper.  People v O’Brien, 2016 NY Slip Op 04471. 3rd Dept 6-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined Supreme Court should not have awarded sole custody to father without a hearing. The “adequate relevant information” standard used by the Appellate Division was not the correct one:

… [W]e hold only that, on this record, the Appellate Division erred in holding that a hearing was not required based on an application of the “adequate relevant information” standard. In doing so, we reaffirm the long-established principle that, as a general matter, custody determinations should be rendered only after a full and plenary hearing. We decline, however, to fashion a “one size fits all” rule mandating a hearing in every custody case statewide. However, where, as here, facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required. Accordingly, a court opting to forego a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were — or were not — material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision. Under the circumstances of this case, a plenary hearing was necessary. S.L. v J.R., 2016 NY Slip Op 04442, CtApp 6-9-16

FAMILY LAW (STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)/CUSTODY (STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)

,

EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED.

The Court of Appeals determined the admission of evidence of an assault on the same victim (A.H.) a week before the charged assault was not error. The defendant acknowledged the evidence was relevant but argued the evidence should have been summarized because it was unduly prejudicial to allow the jury to hear the details:

We cannot say that both defects necessary for reversible error are present in defendant's case, namely, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to limit A.H.'s testimony and that such error substantially prejudiced the defendant so as to foreclose a determination of harmlessness. … A.H.'s testimony concerned the same parties, and served the nonpropensity purpose of directly explaining her relationship with the defendant and his motive. This is far from a case where “the jury did not require a recital of such a prologue to understand fully what had taken place in the defendant's encounters with [the victim]” … . In the same vein, testimony that the defendant previously attacked A.H. would not have led the jury to marginalize, relegate to the background, or ignore the grievous nature of the New York City assault, which was characterized by physical violence and several failed attempts at immolation.

Under these circumstances, we perceive no error that requires a reversal of defendant's conviction. People v Frankline, 2016 NY Slip Op 04441, CtApp 6-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)/UNCHARGED CRIMES (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)

, ,

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined defendant's motion to set aside his conviction was properly denied without a hearing. Defendant's allegations of defense counsel's conflict of interest were deemed insufficient. Defendant alleged his lawyer represented both him and the District Attorney simultaneously:

CPL 440.30 requires that, where the motion to vacate a judgment of conviction “is based upon the existence or occurrence of facts,” sworn allegations thereof must be included in the motion papers (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]). The sworn allegations can be based on personal knowledge or on information and belief, but in support of the latter, “the affiant must state the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 440.30 [1] [a]). The People “may” file an answer “denying or admitting any or all of the allegations” (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]). The statute permits a court to deny the motion without a hearing in certain circumstances, including if it “is based upon the existence or occurrence of facts and the moving papers do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts” (CPL 440.30 [4] [b]). * * *

Here, defendant's actual conflict claim consists of unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations of simultaneous representation. * * *

… [T]he statute is plain that the initial failure by a defendant to carry his or her burden of coming forward with sworn allegations substantiating the essential facts in the 440 motion does not shift the burden to the People in their responsive pleadings. * * *

To the extent defendant's allegations are sufficient to establish a potential conflict — based on the successive representation — his papers do not attempt to demonstrate that such a conflict operated on the defense. People v Wright, 2016 NY Slip Op 04440, CtApp 6-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL)

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