You are here: / Evidence
,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).

The Second Department determined the evidence submitted by defendant law firm in support of a motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint based on documentary evidence was properly denied. The letters and affirmation did not constitute “documentary evidence” and did not utterly refute plaintiff's allegations:

“The evidence submitted in support of a [CPLR 3211(a)(1)] motion must be documentary' or the motion must be denied” … . To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence “must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable,' would qualify as documentary evidence' in the proper case” … . Affidavits and letters “were not the types of documents contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted this provision”… .

Here, the letters … did not constitute documentary evidence for the purpose of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)… ,  Similarly, the affirmation of one of [the law firm's] members was not documentary evidence for the purpose of this motion … . Anderson v Armentano, 2016 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1)

,

AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED.

The Third Department reversed defendant's conviction of the statutory sale of more than one-half ounce of heroin and the related conspiracy conviction (the remaining 15 counts were not reversed). The court determined the evidence of the amount of heroin sold was equivocal:

A statutory sale may be proven by evidence of an offer or agreement to sell drugs, but “the weight of the material must be independently shown” … . Here, no narcotics were recovered by the police, and the proof of the weight of heroin that defendant agreed to procure for [codefendant] Cochran was equivocal; while the amount of 16 grams was discussed, Cochran also stated that he might purchase “something like that” or, because he had limited funds and other expenses, might “get something lower.” As the People correctly argue, the full amount of transferred narcotics need not always be recovered to satisfy the weight requirement when a sale is based upon an offer or an agreement; nevertheless, there must be some form of independent evidence from which the total weight can be extrapolated … . As there was none here, defendant's conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree is reversed and the corresponding count of the indictment dismissed … . People v Wright, 2016 NY Slip Op 03550, 3rd Dept 5-5-15

CRIMINAL LAW (AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)/STATUTORY SALE (CRIMINAL LAW, AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)/WEIGHT OF DRUGS (AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)

,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined the trial evidence supported defendant's request for a jury instruction of the justification defense. A new trial was ordered:

Here, based upon the testimony of the People's witnesses, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that would permit the jury to conclude that the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent Jimmy [the victim] from using deadly force against the defendant or his friend, Ranjit … . There was testimony that, immediately before he was stabbed, Jimmy was belligerent and wielded a knife inside the defendant's home, and that he had threatened Ranjit's life. Significantly, Ranjit and another witness described Jimmy as the initial aggressor … . Moreover, this incident occurred in the defendant's dwelling and, thus, to the extent that he believed that Jimmy was about to use deadly physical force against him, he was under no duty to retreat … . People v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 03537, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE SUPPORTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

PROVIDING AN UNREDACTED STATEMENT TO THE JURY BY MISTAKE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department determined providing the unredacted statement to the jury by mistake deprived defendant of a fair trial, without regard to whether the mistake contributed to defendant's conviction:

CPL 310.20(1) provides, “[u]pon retiring to deliberate, the jurors may take with them: . . . Any exhibits received in evidence at the trial which the court, after according the parties an opportunity to be heard upon the matter, in its discretion permits them to take.” Here, the defendant's written statement was admitted into evidence at trial, but the parties agreed to redact the statement so as to omit a portion of it indicating, in part, that the defendant's girlfriend “attempted to say I [the defendant] raped her [the defendant's girlfriend].” The parties further agreed that they would return to court before the jury received that exhibit. The redacted portion of the statement was unrelated to the robbery for which the defendant was standing trial. However, in violation of CPL 310.20(1) and the parties' express agreement, the defendant's statement was mistakenly provided to the jury, without the attorneys having been notified first, and without the statement having been fully redacted … . Instead of granting the defense attorney's motion for a mistrial, as it should have done in view of the highly prejudicial nature of the redacted portion of the statement, the Supreme Court gave an instruction regarding the statement that was ineffectual in curing the prejudice. “The right to a fair trial is self-standing,” and where error operates to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, an appellate court “must reverse the conviction and grant a new trial, quite without regard to any evaluation as to whether the errors contributed to the defendant's conviction” … . People v Reid, 2016 NY Slip Op 03535, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PROVIDING AN UNREDACTED STATEMENT TO THE JURY BY MISTAKE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROVIDING AN UNREDACTED STATEMENT TO THE JURY BY MISTAKE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

CAUSE OF FALL SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the cause of her fall with circumstantial evidence. The defense motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

” In a slip and fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall' without engaging in speculation” … . In a circumstantial evidence case, however, “[the] plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence . . . , [but the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, plaintiff consistently testified that her shoe became caught on a crack in the step, which caused her to fall. Although there were no witnesses to the fall, and plaintiff could not remember seeing the crack at the time of the accident, she testified that the fall occurred in the immediate vicinity of a crack in the step, as revealed by a photograph in the record, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [her] fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . Rinallo v St. Casimir Parish & Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 03323, 4th Dept 4-29-16


IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial in a personal injury action because defense counsel violated rules of evidence re: impeachment with collateral matters. Defense counsel improperly introduced evidence of plaintiff's drug test results and improperly informed the jury of prior lawsuits brought by plaintiff:

It is well settled that a cross-examiner at trial is “bound by the answers of the witness to questions on collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility” … , and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to impeach a witness's credibility after the witness has provided an answer with which the cross-examiner is unsatisfied … . Here, defense counsel asked plaintiff during cross-examination whether she had failed an employment-related drug test, a collateral issue relevant only to plaintiff's credibility. In response, plaintiff testified that the test result was a “false positive” that was proved false upon retesting. Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff's assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff's credibility … .

The impact of that improper conduct was compounded when defense counsel thereafter questioned defendant's medical expert, over plaintiff's objection, about “drug use history” notations in plaintiff's medical records that, according to the expert, raised questions as to plaintiff's “credibility.” * * *

Finally, despite the court's pretrial ruling precluding defendants from questioning plaintiff about a personal injury claim she had filed in connection with a prior accident, defense counsel, over objection, asked plaintiff if she had been involved in any “legal action” related to her “neck and/or back condition.” Because evidence of prior accidents and lawsuits related thereto “may not [be used to] . . . demonstrate that plaintiff is litigious and therefore unworthy of belief” … , it was error for the court to allow that questioning. In our view, the improper attacks on plaintiff's credibility, viewed as a whole, denied plaintiff a fair trial. Dunn v Garrett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03283, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A BUSINESS RECORD AND AS A PARTY ADMISSION, STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on liability because a statement attributed to the plaintiff in a hospital report should not have been excluded. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by defendant's vehicle as she walked behind it. The statement attributed to plaintiff indicated only that she fell in the road. The nurse who wrote the statement would have testified the plaintiff made the statement. The statement was admissible as part of a business record (hospital record) because it was germane to treatment or diagnosis. The statement was also admissible as a party admission:

“Such records are admissible if the proponent offers either foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c)” … . The defendants should have been permitted to call the nurse to testify to establish a foundation for the admission of the entry from the hospital record as a business record. A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . Further, “if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'” … . In this case, the nurse, had she been permitted to testify, would have provided the evidence connecting the plaintiff to the entry, and, since the entry was inconsistent with the plaintiff's position at trial, which was that she was struck by the vehicle, the entry would be admissible as a party admission. Berkovits v Chaaya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03131, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs' motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. Defendant acknowledged she turned right coming out of a parking lot but was looking to her left. Defendant struck the pedestrian plaintiffs. The jury found defendant was negligent but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The court noted that the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, but there was no reasonable view of the evidence in which defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause:

… [T]he jury's determination that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . The issues of negligence and proximate cause are so inextricably interwoven in this case that the jury's finding that the defendant was negligent cannot be reconciled with its finding that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . That is, the defendant admitted that she turned right out of a parking lot while looking to her left despite the fact that she knew that pedestrians crossed 71st Avenue at that location to access the parking lot from which she was exiting. Notwithstanding any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendant's negligence in driving in one direction while looking in the other direction and thereby failing to see pedestrians who were there to be seen in the middle of the street was a substantial, not a slight or trivial, cause of this accident … . Accordingly, although the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, no fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's finding that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Cruz v Jeffrey, 2016 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY OF METHODS USED BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY HIS IP ADDRESS AND THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPUTER, SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

The Second Department, in this child pornography case, determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer without a hearing. The defense motion papers raised substantive factual disputes concerning the efficacy and legality of methods and software used by the police to identify defendant's IP address and the contents of defendant's computer, issues which can only be resolved by a hearing:

In determining a motion to suppress evidence, the court “is required to grant a hearing if the defendant raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . “[T]he sufficiency of [a] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … .

In his omnibus motion, the defendant contended that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The defendant's motion included detailed factual allegations regarding the functioning of peer-to-peer networks and, based on these assertions, challenged the detective's contention in the warrant application that he was able to identify child pornography files that actually existed on the defendant's computer. In his separate suppression motion, the defendant raised a factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the use of certain software or other activity by the investigating detective prior to securing the warrant constituted a search of his computer. People v Worrell, 2016 NY Slip Op 03206, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT MET BY POINTING TO GAPS IN OTHER PARTY’S PROOF.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of plaintiff police officer's negligence cause of action did not mandate dismissal of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his slip and fall injury resulted from defendant's failure to comply with specified regulations. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate the regulations were not breached. The court noted that simply pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof is not enough in the summary judgment context:

…[T]he dismissal of the plaintiff's common-law negligence cause of action was not fatal, as a matter of law, to his General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In order to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the statute does not mandate that the plaintiff establish general negligence, but rather, negligence of any person in “failing to comply” with the requirements of, inter alia, a regulation … , or ” negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … . Furthermore, while the plaintiff alleged in his consolidated complaint that the defendants violated certain identified regulations, the defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate in their submissions to the Supreme Court that these regulations were not breached. A defendant's prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment cannot be met by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case … . Vaughn v Veolia Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02985, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


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