You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOOTING WAS DNA ON A HANDGUN; THE EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s murder conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The only evidence against the defendant was DNA on a handgun. No evidence placed defendant at the scene of the shooting or in the vehicle apparently used by persons (Jenkins and Brown) involved in the shooting:

… [T]here no evidence from which to infer that defendant had the intent to commit, or aid Jenkins or Brown in furtherance of, the shooting. The People’s case depends almost entirely upon the DNA evidence, from which the People infer that defendant racked the Glock used to kill Ms. Jacobs. The DNA evidence, however, is highly equivocal and does not reasonably permit such an inference. … Critically, the OCME [Office of the Chief Medical Examiner] criminalist Hardy testified that it was impossible to determine when each contributor left DNA on the gun; how defendant’s DNA was transferred to the gun; or, more importantly, whether defendant even touched the gun. Without additional evidence that defendant possessed the gun during or took any actions to aid Jenkins or Brown in the shooting, any conclusion that defendant possessed the gun or committed or aided in the shooting is based entirely on conjecture.

There is no such corroborating evidence. This case contains no physical, video, or testimonial proof regarding any act defendant took in furtherance of possessing the gun or shooting Ms. Jacobs. Even assuming arguendo defendant’s presence with Jenkins and Brown nearly two hours before the shooting, such does not lead to a permissible inference that he shot Ms. Jacobs or possessed the gun in furtherance of the crime that evening. * * *

Further, there is no legally sufficient evidence proving that defendant was present at the crime scene. Again, assuming that defendant was with Jenkins and Brown hours prior to the shooting does not permit any reasonable inference that he was with them at the crime scene. There is no evidence that defendant ever entered the Nissan. Nor was there evidence that he was present in the Nissan at the time of the chase. While police recovered from the Nissan fingerprints of Jenkins, Brown, and that of a third unidentified back seat passenger, they did not recover defendant’s prints. Additionally, the liquor bottles with which the People attempt to tie defendant to the car do not match those defendant purchased at the liquor store, and the bottles were never tested for defendant’s fingerprints or DNA. People v Coke, 2025 NY Slip Op 01297, First Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for discussions of convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. the criteria for finding evidence legally insufficient. and the criteria for finding a verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT OF WHETHER THE FOUR-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF UNDERSTOOD AND ASSUMED THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN A YOUTH HOCKEY CLINIC; THE COACH, WHILE SKATING BACKWARDS, FELL ON THE CHILD; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant town (Oyster Bay), which offered a youth hockey clinic, was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the four-year-old plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. Defendant coach (Marlow) was skating backwards when he fell on the four-year-old plaintiff:

The [assumption of the risk] “doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities ‘is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Risks that are “commonly encountered” or “inherent” in a sport, as well as risks “involving less than optimal conditions,” are risks tha participants have accepted and are encompassed by the assumption of risk doctrine … . “It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . Awareness of risk is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff … .

Given the evidence submitted in support of the Town defendants’ cross-motion, including the infant plaintiff’s age and scant information concerning the infant plaintiff’s skill and experience level with ice hockey, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff fully appreciated the risks involved in terms of the activity he was engaged in so as to find he assumed the risk of his injuries under the facts of this case … . H.B. v Town of Oyster Bay, 2025 NY Slip Op 01203, Second Dept 3-5-25

Practice Point: Sometimes the application of a legal doctrine seems absurd. Can a four-year-old participant in a hockey clinic appreciate the risk of being injured by a coach who skates backwards and falls on him?

 

,

OBSERVING THE DEFENDANT CARRYING CAPPED BOTTLES OF ALCOHOL AND HAVING A HEAVY OBJECT IN A JACKET POCKET WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DETAINING DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN AN OFFICER SAID “COME OVER HERE” IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE; THE SEIZED HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the handgun seized in a street stop should have been suppressed. Two police officers in a vehicle observed the defendant crossing the street. The defendant was carrying haff-full bottles of alcohol, but the bottles were not open. When one of the officers got out of the police vehicle and shone a flashlight on the defendant he noticed there appeared to be a heavy object in the defendant’s jacket pocket. The officer told the defendant to “come over here.” The defendant ran, was tackled, and the handgun was seized:

Transporting closed bottles is a legal activity which, without more, does not give rise to a presumption of intent to consume, or a founded suspicion of criminal activity under DeBour. Moreover, the fact that it was raining makes it less likely that the defendant intended to congregate outside and remain exposed to the elements while consuming alcohol. Critically, the officers never saw defendant drink from any of the bottles. Therefore, these facts did not give rise to a presumption that defendant intended to consume alcohol in public in violation of the statute, and Officer Delia, at most, acquired the right to approach defendant to request information.

The heavy-weighted object in defendant’s right jacket pocket could not have justified defendant’s stop and detention because, “absent other circumstances evoking suspicion, indicative of or referable to the possession of a handgun, the observation of a mere bulge or heavy object in a pocket does not imply a reasonable conclusion that the person is armed” … . “A police officer must show that the object or appearance thereof which is the focus of his attention resembled a gun” … . Thus, absent a showing of anything other than a mere bulge or heavy object in defendant’s pocket, Officer Delia could not have acquired a level of suspicion sufficient to detain the defendant … . People v Walker, 2025 NY Slip Op 01194, First Dept 3-4-25

Practice Point: If what the police observe is not enough to justify a street stop, the defendant’s flight when the police approach is irrelevant.​

 

,

ABSENT AMBIGUITY A COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO INTERPRET A CONTRACT; HERE PLAINTIFF HAD BROUGHT TWO ACTIONS AGAINST THE CITY CHALLENGING TWO SEPARATE ARRESTS; THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE RELEASE ONLY APPLIED TO THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN THE CAPTION OF THE RELEASE; THE SPACE FOR DESCRIBING ANY ACTION TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE RELEASE WAS LEFT BLANK; THEREFORE THE RELEASE APPLIED TO BOTH ACTIONS; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the release signed by plaintiff applied to both actions plaintiff had brought against the city, not just the action identified in the caption of the release. Plaintiff brought two separate actions challenging two arrests occurring 14 days apart. The release identified the action stemming from the second arrest and left a blank space to describe anything to be excluded from the release. That space was left blank. Supreme Court and the dissent determined that the plaintiff intended to exclude the first action from the release but plaintiff’s attorney inadvertently left the space for the exclusion blank:

Like any contract, a release must be “read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent,” and extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent may be considered only if the agreement is ambiguous … . “A contract is unambiguous if the language it uses has a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion” … . “More to the point, an ambiguity never arises out of what is not written at all, but only out of what was written so blindly and imperfectly that its meaning is doubtful” … .

Here, there was nothing surreptitious about the City sensibly filling in plaintiff’s name as the releasor, the case name and the index number referrable to Action 2, in the general release to identify the specific matter being settled. What followed are standard, boiler-plate operative terms of this general release, namely, a broadly worded waiver provision and a claim exclusion clause, both of which are clear and unambiguous. Thus, there was no legal basis for the motion court to use any extrinsic evidence, discern an unfounded ambiguity therefrom and ultimately surmise the parties’ intent to limit the scope of the general release to Action 2 … . Smith v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01198, First Dept 3-4-25

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court considered extrinsic evidence indicating that the release was meant to apply to only one of two actions plaintiff brought against the city. The First Department held that, because the release was not ambiguous, the court cannot consider extrinsic evidence. Therefore the release, by its terms, applied to both actions.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s foot to sink down about an inch into soft temporary asphalt was trivial or open and obvious as a matter of law:

Although defendants stress that the alleged defect was, at most by plaintiff’s own admission, only an inch in height, even physically small defects can be actionable “when their surrounding circumstances or intrinsic characteristics make them difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as hazards or difficult to traverse safely on foot” … . When considering the attendant circumstances, including that the defect formed itself only as plaintiff stepped down on it, the location of the alleged defect in front of plaintiff’s driveway and that defendants acknowledged temporary asphalt could depress or settle but had no record or knowledge if they performed any inspection in the area where plaintiff fell, we cannot say “as a matter of law that the condition was so trivial and slight in nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen that an accident would happen” … . Nor can we say that the defect, which may have formed due to voids under the surface of the temporary asphalt and was not physically observable until after plaintiff stepped down on it, “did not constitute a trap for the unwary” … . To this point, the fact that the backfilled trench had a sharply contrasted hue as opposed to the rest of the roadway surface or the mouth of plaintiff’s driveway simply does not translate to an open and obvious condition because of the nature of the defect, which only formed after it had been stepped on, and therefore defendants’ reliance on these facts as an aegis is misplaced. Santiago v National Grid USA Serv. Co., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01139, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: The defendant seeking summary judgment in a slip and fall case bears the burden of demonstrating the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall was trivial or open and obvious. Here defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to eliminate questions of fact for either theory.

 

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a protruding nail in a basement stairway which allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The defendant did not present any evidence demonstrating when the stairway was last inspected or cleaned:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 234-236 Elmendorf Street, LLC [the property owner], lacked constructive notice of the protruding nail condition alleged by the plaintiff … . Although the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein she averred that she did not notice the protruding nail when she last used the staircase approximately one week prior to her accident, the defendants did not establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the alleged accident in order for it to be remedied … . Moreover, the defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence as to when 234-236 Elmendorf Street, LLC, had last cleaned or inspected the staircase at issue … . Jones v 234-236 Elmendorf St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01083, Second Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice the protruding nail the week before her fall was not sufficient to demonstrate defendant property owner did not have constructive knowledge of the protruding nail. No evidence of when the stairway was last cleaned or inspected was presented.

 

, , ,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS (RAISED BY A DEFENSE INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED WITH THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS) ABOUT WHETHER THE DESCRIPTON OF THE SEARCHED PREMISES IN THE WARRANT WAS ACCURATE, REQUIRING A HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, remanding the matter for a suppression hearing, and finding the appeal waiver invalid, determined there were questions about whether the search warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. The warrant indicated there was only one apartment, with an unmarked tan door. The defendant’s investigator submitted evidence demonstrating there were two apartments, neither with a tan door, and the door to the searched apartment was marked with a number one, while the other apartment door was unmarked:

The plea colloquy contained several defects. It did not make clear, expressly or tacitly, that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the Boykin rights defendant was automatically forfeiting with the plea; the colloquy suggested that the appeal waiver was absolute, offering no clue that some core appellate claims would survive; and, relatedly, the colloquy wrongly indicated that no appeal was permissible on the fundamental issues of whether the plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the sentence was legal.

The written waiver cannot save the oral appeal waiver. The plea court did not confirm that defendant had read the written waiver; the court did not confirm that defendant had discussed the written waiver with counsel; and the court did not confirm that defendant understood the written waiver … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s submissions in support of his omnibus motion call into question whether the search warrant contains a misdescription of the premises to be searched, and, if there is a misdescription, whether it renders the warrant invalid. Specifically, defendant’s omnibus motion submissions raise a question of fact as to whether, based on what the police officer knew or should have known about the premises when the search warrant was sought, the warrant’s description of the target premises was accurate … . [D]efendant here submitted evidence (in particular, the affirmation of the investigator who visited the premises and the photographs of 955 Bruckner Boulevard taken by the investigator) about the “actual conditions of the premises” in support of his omnibus motion … . Additionally, assuming there was a misdescription of the premises to be searched, a question of fact exists as to whether there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would have been searched … .

We cannot resolve the issues raised by defendant’s omnibus motion submissions without a hearing (see CPL 710.60[4]; see also CPL 710.60[2] …). This is not a situation where it is plain from the existing record that there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would be searched regardless of any misdescription … . People v Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a detailed explanation of the criteria for a valid waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: Here the defense investigator submitted evidence which raised a question whether the search warrant accurately described the premises to be searched. The matter was remanded for a hearing.

 

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic stop was proper (inoperable brake light) but the search of defendant’s person, based on the odor of marijuana, was not:

… [T]he officer’s testimony was insufficient to establish that there was probable cause for the search of the defendant’s person. As the law existed in 2020, “the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, [was alone] sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, however, the officer did not testify that he had any training or experience in detecting the odor of marihuana … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. People v McLeod, 2025 NY Slip Op 01108, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Under the law as it was in 2020, the search of a person could be justified by the odor of marijuana, but only if the officer was qualified by training and experience to recognize the odor of marijuana. Here the officer did not testify he was qualified to recognize the odor of marihuana. Therefore, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS IMPROPERLY BOLSTERED IN OPINION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER AND A PSYCHOLOGIST ASSERTING THAT THE VICTIM WAS BELIEVABLE AND RELIABLE; A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE VICTIMS, IN WHICH THE VICTIM DENIED DEFENDANT HAD EVER MOLESTED THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in the interest of justice, reversed the “predatory sexual assault against a child” convictions which involved two victims, and ordered a severance if a new trial is held. The Third Department determined the credibility of one of the victims was improperly bolstered by the testimony by a police officer and a psychologist that they found the victim’s version of events believable and reliable. In addition, the Third Department held that a prior inconsistent statement by one of the victims, denying that defendant ever molested the victim, should have been admitted in evidence:

… [W]e find merit in defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon the testimonies of Breslin [a police officer] and Spagli [a psychologist], who each offered their opinion as to victim 2’s credibility. Accordingly, notwithstanding defendant’s failure to properly preserve his claim, we exercise our discretion and reverse in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] …). “It is always within the sole province of the jury to decide whether the testimony of any witness is truthful or not” … . As such, “to bolster the testimony of another witness . . . by explaining that his [or her] version of the events is more believable than the defendant’s, the . . . testimony is equivalent to an opinion that the defendant is guilty, and the receipt of such testimony may not be condoned” … . Here, Breslin testified that he “felt . . . [victim 2] was telling the truth.” Spagli, in turn, agreed that the goal of reaching the truth “was done in this case” and further testified that she “felt [victim 2] was reliable throughout the course of the investigation.” Supreme Court did not provide a curative instruction.

We are similarly persuaded by defendant’s claim that he was improperly denied the opportunity to impeach victim 2 about an alleged prior inconsistent statement given in an unrelated Family Court matter, in which victim 2 reportedly denied ever having been molested by defendant. * * * The impeachment testimony sought here … concerned the ultimate issue before the jury. Accordingly, we conclude that it was error to preclude defendant from exercizing his right to confront victim 2 about their prior statement; the court could have crafted limitations to prevent the disclosure of unduly prejudicial information upon such questioning … . People v Swartz, 2025 NY Slip Op 01015, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: If trial errors are severe enough, as they were here, an appellate court has the power to overlook the failure to preserve the errors and reverse in the interest of justice.

 

,

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE STATE POLICE INVENTORY-SEARCH POLICY WERE MINOR AND DID NOT WARRANT SUPPRESSION OF THE HANDGUN FOUND IN THE SEARCH; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRDD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s suppression of a handgun found in an inventory search, determined any deviations from the State Police’s inventory-search procedure were minor and did not warrant suppression of evidence seized during the search:

As for whether the trooper who conducted the search of the Kia sufficiently complied with that policy, County Court determined that the trooper did not because “there [were] a great many items and effects within the vehicle that are not memorialized within the inventory form” and because the form “was not filled out until some many hours — if not days — after the search was conducted.” * * *

The foregoing were “minor deviation[s] from procedure” under the circumstances of this case “and did not undermine the reasonableness of the limited search,” particularly because “there was no indication that the police were using the procedure as a pretext to search for incriminating evidence” to begin with … . It is not the role of either County Court or this Court to “micromanage the procedures used to search properly impounded” vehicles and, as the record leaves no question both that the towing]and inventory search of the Kia were justified and that the ensuing list of the vehicle’s contents sufficiently complied with State Police policy to meet the constitutional minimum, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been denied in its entirety … . People v Craddock, 2025 NY Slip Op 01016, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held that any deviations from the State Police inventory-search procedure were minor and did not warrant suppression. Two justices dissented.

 

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