You are here: / Evidence
,

PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy beam being lowered by two other workers struck him in the chest and leg when the workers lost control of it. The court noted an expert opinion that no safety devices were needed was insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law 240 (1) violation:

The court properly found a “causal connection between the object’s inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” … . By submitting an expert affidavit, plaintiff met his initial burden of showing that the beam “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … , and that statutorily enumerated safety devices could have prevented the accident … . It is undisputed that no enumerated safety devices were provided, and the testimony and expert opinion that such devices were neither necessary nor customary is insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation ”’ . The “height differential cannot be described as de minimis given the amount of force [the beam was] able to generate over [its] descent” … . Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, which were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which the other two workers lowered the beam; comparative negligence is no defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium, 2015 NY Slip Op 09632, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY BEAM LOWERED BY TWO WORKERS)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION NO SAFEY EQUIPMENT NECESSARY DID NOT DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (OPINION THAT NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)

,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET, WHICH WAS NOT ON HIS PERSON, AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND IN CUSTODY VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

The Fourth Department determined the search of the pockets of defendant’s jacket (which was not on his person) after defendant was handcuffed and in custody was illegal under the State Constitution and the drugs found in the pockets should have been suppressed. The court further found that the illegally-seized drugs presented as evidence at trial may have influenced the jury to find an “intent to sell” with respect to the remaining drug count. A new trial was ordered on the remaining count:

After securing the jacket, the officers replaced the handcuffs on defendant and escorted him to the rear seat of their patrol car. One of the officers placed the jacket on the floor of the front seat of the patrol car, where it remained while defendant was transported to the Public Safety Building. Defendant was taken to an interview room, and the jacket was searched in another room at the Public Safety Building. A variety of drugs was discovered in the jacket pockets. * * *

“Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest . . . The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . We conclude that, here, neither requirement is satisfied. At the time the jacket was searched, defendant was handcuffed in an interview room at the Public Safety Building. “[T]he jacket had been reduced to the exclusive control of the police[,] and there was no reasonable possibility that defendant could have reached it” … . Nor was there any exigency that would justify the warrantless search of the jacket in these circumstances … . People v Wilcox, 2015 NY Slip Op 09457, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)

,

EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED; JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY FROM FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS; NOTHING CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS’ COLLECTIVE SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE’S QUESTION WHETHER THEY COULD BE FAIR.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial after finding that defendant’s motion to suppress statements and evidence should have been granted. The police entered defendant’s apartment without permission. The People argued that the entry was proper under the so-called emergency exception to the warrant requirement. However, the facts indicated the police entered the apartment solely because of defendant’s refusal to open the door. The Fourth Department further noted that five prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they all indicated not hearing from the defendant would be problematic for them. The judge explained that the defendant had no responsibility to put on any proof, but failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance from each of the jurors that they could render an impartial verdict. The judge simply asked all the jurors collectively whether they had a problem sitting as fair and impartial jurors and the jurors remained silent:

… [B]ased on our review of the record, we conclude that “the evidence at the suppression hearing [did] not establish that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there [was] an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property’ ” … . Indeed, the People did not present any evidence that the police observed anything unusual once they arrived at defendant’s apartment. Although the record indicates that defendant and the victim may have been previously involved in domestic disputes, both police officers testified at the suppression hearing that they did not have direct, personal knowledge of any previous domestic violence or any indication that defendant and the victim were engaged in a domestic dispute at the time they arrived at the apartment. The police officers testified only that they knew that defendant was inside the apartment but would not answer the door. In our view, such testimony is insufficient to support a determination that the “emergency exception” applied to justify the warrantless entry.

… Here, the record establishes that five out of the six prospective jurors clearly expressed concerns that not hearing from defendant or someone on behalf of defendant would affect, inter alia, their ability to be fair and impartial. In response, the court instructed the jury panel that defendant has no responsibility to put on any proof, that he may or may not call witnesses, that he may or may not take the witness stand, and that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the elements of the crimes of which defendant is accused. The court then asked the jury panel whether anyone had “a problem sitting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?” The five prospective jurors at issue remained silent.

In our view, the statements of the five prospective jurors cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict … . The court erred in not obtaining thereafter an “unequivocal assurance . . . from each of those potential jurors” to the effect that he or she could render an impartial verdict … . Furthermore, “we can infer nothing from the [collective] silence of the challenged jurors” … . People v Casillas, 2015 NY Slip Op 09454, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED)/EVIDENCE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT (MISAPPLIED)/SUPPRESSION (EMERGENCEY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT MISAPPLIED)/CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)/JURIES (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)

,

SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR WAS AN ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCH.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined what amounted to a strip search at a traffic stop was illegal. The officer searched defendant’s underwear and seized drugs which were inside defendant’s underwear:

… [B]ecause the officer intended to transport defendant to the police station to charge him with the traffic infractions, he was justified in conducting a pat search for weapons before placing defendant in the patrol vehicle … . We note that a person’s underwear, “unlike a waistband or even a jacket pocket, is not a common sanctuary for weapons’ ” …  and, in any event, the officer did not pat the outside of defendant’s clothing to determine whether defendant had secreted a weapon in his underwear after defendant leaned forward. Instead, he conducted a strip search by engaging in a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body … . …  We conclude that a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body on a city street was not based upon reasonable suspicion that defendant was concealing a weapon or evidence underneath his clothing… . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 09517, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)

,

IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court, in a visitation-modification proceeding, properly found that the daughter’s out-of-court statements about alleged sex abuse were not reliably corroborated:

“It is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody [and visitation] cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’ . . . , where . . . the statements are corroborated” … . “Although the degree of corroboration [required] is low, a threshold of reliability’ must be met” … . “The repetition of an accusation does not corroborate a child’s prior statement’ . . . , although the reliability threshold may be satisfied by the testimony of an expert” … . “Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated . . . , and its findings must be accorded deference on appeal where . . . the . . . [c]ourt is primarily confronted with issues of credibility” … .

Here, there is no direct or physical evidence of abuse, and thus “the case turns almost entirely on issues of credibility” … . Although the mother correctly notes that some corroboration may be provided through the consistency of a child’s statements and that a child’s out-of-court statements may be corroborated by testimony regarding the child’s increased sexualized behavior … , the court determined here that the mother’s witnesses—who provided the corroborative testimony regarding the daughter’s purportedly consistent statements and sexualized behavior—were not credible. Matter of East v Giles, 2015 NY Slip Op 09466, 4th Dept 12-23-15

FAMILY LAW (CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/EVIDENCE (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/HEARSAY (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)

,

SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT PRECEDED BY PAT DOWN SEARCH; SEIZURE OF WEAPON FROM JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence taken during a search of his jacket should have been granted. The searching officer had the right to pat the defendant down for weapons but did not do so. The search of the pockets, which turned up a weapon, was not, therefore, supported by probable cause:

The search of the defendant’s right jacket pocket, from which the police recovered a gun, cannot be upheld as justifiably premised on probable cause, since the defendant had not been placed under arrest prior to the search … . “[A]n officer who reasonably suspects that a detainee is armed may conduct a frisk or take other protective measures even in the absence of probable cause to arrest” … . However, “[a] police officer acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his own safety may intrude upon the person or personal effects of the suspect only to the extent that is actually necessary to protect himself from harm while he conducts the inquiry” … . “The key question in all cases remains whether the protective measures taken by the officer were reasonable under the circumstances” … .

Here, the police officer searched the defendant’s jacket pocket without any prior visual observations of a weapon and without first conducting a pat down of the outside of the pocket. Thus, even assuming that the officer acted on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and an articulable basis to fear for his safety, he failed to confine the scope of his search to an intrusion reasonably necessary to protect himself from harm. Accordingly, the weapon recovered as a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed. In addition, the drugs and other items thereafter recovered must also be suppressed as fruits of the initial, unlawful search … . People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 09442, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)

,

DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT WARRANT AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that the destruction of blood evidence by Hurricane Sandy did not warrant an adverse inference jury instruction, despite the People’s failure to timely respond to the defense request for the evidence. The court determined that the adverse inference jury instruction is not triggered by a loss of evidence for which the People are blameless:

… [T]he Handy [20 NY3d 663] adverse inference charge is a penalty for destruction of evidence, not for mere tardiness in producing it. …  While we do not condone the People’s slowness in fulfilling their disclosure obligations in this case, the evidence in question was not lost as a foreseeable result of the passage of time, but as a consequence of a natural catastrophe that happened to occur just before this case went to trial. Moreover, the delay in production of the evidence here appears to be as much the fault of the defense as of the People. Even though the defense always knew that the case would rely on DNA evidence, defense counsel, after making a pro forma request to which the physical blood evidence would have been responsive, never took any steps before the hurricane, over a period of approximately two years, to enforce defendant’s right to production of that evidence. As previously noted, the physical evidence did not become a focus of the discussion among the court and counsel until after the hurricane had passed. …

We see no support in the record for the dissent’s position that the physical blood evidence from the crime scene was somehow material to the defense. As previously discussed, while the dissent correctly notes that the match of defendant’s DNA with the DNA in the crime scene evidence was “the lynchpin of the People’s case against defendant,” placing before the jury the physical blood evidence from the crime scene would not have told them anything about the accuracy of the DNA match. Indeed, this appears to have been the original conclusion of defense counsel, who, without ever having had an opportunity to examine the physical evidence, announced that he was “ready to go” to trial before he learned that such evidence was no longer [*4]available. Nothing but speculation supports the dissent’s unlikely supposition that the appearance of the physical blood evidence at trial might have told the jury anything about “the manner of its collection, storage or handling” at the time the State analyzed its DNA, three years before trial. The condition of the physical evidence after the State conducted its analysis is irrelevant, since defendant has never expressed any interest in conducting an independent DNA analysis. People v Austin, 2015 NY Slip Op 09372, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/JURY INSTRUCTION (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED, EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)/EVIDENCE (DESTRUCTION BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NOT WARRANTED WHERE EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)

,

EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.

The First Department determined evidence of how the murder victim felt toward the defendant and evidence of the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was properly admitted to show the defendant’s motive and was inextricably interwoven with the issue of the identity of the killer:

The court properly admitted testimony from friends of the victim reflecting the victim’s unfavorable perception of defendant’s character, in order to show the victim’s beliefs as part of a showing that the couple had been arguing and that the victim had been attempting to break up with defendant. Proof of the “murder victim’s espoused intention to terminate her relationship with, and stay away from, defendant” was admissible to show the “victim’s state of mind” and was “relevant to the issue of the motive of defendant, who was aware of the victim’s attitude, to kill the victim” … . Hence, the background information about the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was admissible as “highly probative of the defendant’s motive and [was] either directly related to or inextricably interwoven with the issue of his identity as the killer” … . The friends’ testimony about disputes between defendant and the victim was similarly admissible … . People v Brooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 09379, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)/EVIDENCE (MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY); PRIOR BAD ACTS (STRIFE IN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND MURDER VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)

,

HEARSAY STATEMENT BY AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a statement made by an unavailable witness should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest. The defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The out-of-court statement made by the unavailable witness indicated that she, not the defendant, was driving. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, reversed defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that all of the following elements of the declaration-against-penal-interest exception to the hearsay rule were supported by sufficient evidence at trial:

The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule “flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest” unless those facts are true … . A statement qualifies as a declaration against interest if four elements are met: (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness; (2) when the statement was made, the declarant was aware that it was adverse to his or her penal interest; (3) the declarant has competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and (4) supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself attest to its trustworthiness and reliability … . People v Soto, 2015 NY Slip Op 09316, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/HEARSAY (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO EXCLUDE)

, ,

PROSECUTION’S USE OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION; THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott (who adopted the dissent by Justice Garry in the Appellate Division), determined that the prosecution’s proof of defendant’s post-Miranda silence as he was being transported by the police violated defendant’s due process rights under the state constitution. The error, however, was deemed harmless because the court found there was no reasonable possibility the error contributed to defendant’s conviction. The defendant’s conviction was therefore upheld. The defendant acknowledged commission of the crimes (two murders) but raised the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense. The Court of Appeals held that evidence of defendant’s silence upon arrest, which apparently was aimed at disproving or calling into question the EED defense, did not contribute to the jury’s rejection of the EED defense. The opinion includes extensive discussions of the use of evidence of a defendant’s silence and the related violation of state constitutional rights, the EED proof requirements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Pavone, 2015 NY Slip Op 09315, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SILENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)

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