You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

RECORDINGS OF 911 CALLS RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CAR ACCIDENT DISCOVERABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.

In a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department determined the recordings of 911 calls relating to plaintiff’s decedent’s (Reece’s) car accident were discoverable. The wrongful death action was brought against the state alleging that a traffic counting device shattered when plaintiff’s decedent’s car drove over it, puncturing the gas tank and causing a fire which killed plaintiff’s decedent and two children. The claimant served a subpoena upon non-party county for the recordings and the county moved to quash the subpoena. The Second Department held that the motion to quash was properly denied:

The County moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that under County Law § 308(4), 911 recordings and documents are not discoverable by any entity or person other than certain designated public agencies and emergency medical providers. The claimant opposed the motion and thereafter moved to compel discovery of, inter alia, the 911 tapes, arguing that they were discoverable under CPLR 3101 as material and relevant matter. Specifically, the claimant argued that the material may be expected to reveal why Reece’s vehicle left the roadway, the length of time the vehicle’s occupants experienced conscious pain and suffering, and the amount of time it took for police to respond to the scene. * * *

We view the language of County Law § 308(4) as generally prohibiting entities and private individuals from accessing 911 tapes and records … . However, the statute is not intended to prohibit the disclosure of matter that is material and relevant in a civil litigation, accessible by a so-ordered subpoena or directed by a court to be disclosed in a discovery order … . Indeed, in analogous criminal practice, 911 tapes and records are frequently made available to individual defendants as part of the People’s disclosure obligations pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286…) and are admitted at trials to describe events as present sense impressions of witnesses … , to identify perpetrators as present sense impressions … , or as excited utterances … . Clearly, the general language of County Law § 308(4), which is part of the statute governing the establishment of an emergency 911 system in various counties, cannot be interpreted as prohibiting court-ordered discovery of 911 material in civil litigation. Anderson v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09648, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/MUNICIPAL LAW (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/EVIDENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/WRONGFUL DEATH (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE)/911 TAPES (DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)

,

ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE COULD SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER SIXTEEN TO SUPPORT THE AGE-ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; HERE APPELLANT’S COUSIN’S ALLEGATION APPELLANT WAS FOURTEEN WAS INSUFFICIENT.

The Second Department determined that the allegation of appellant’s age in a juvenile delinquency petition was insufficient. The adjudication based upon “unlawful possession of weapons by persons under sixteen” was therefore deleted. Although an allegation of age by a close relative will be sufficient to support an age-element of an offense, here the age allegation was made by appellant’s cousin:

Here, the petition failed to provide an adequate nonhearsay allegation of an essential element of Penal Law § 265.05, namely, that the appellant was under the age of sixteen at the time of the incident. The complainant’s supporting deposition alleged that the appellant was his “14-year-old cousin,” but it did not state the source of the complainant’s knowledge of the appellant’s age. The presentment agency contends that the allegation is sufficient, and it relies on the proposition that “it is generally recognized that the age of a family member is common knowledge within a family” (Matter of Brandon P., 106 AD3d 653, 653). That proposition, however, applies to close family relationships. Notably, in Matter of Brandon P., the allegation as to the appellant’s age was made by the appellant’s sister (see id. at 653). The relationship of “cousin,” by contrast, is too distant and too broad in degree of consanguinity (see Black’s Law Dictionary 442-443 [10th ed 2014]) to meet the requirements of Family Court Act § 311.2 in this case. Specifically, the complainant’s statement regarding the appellant’s age was not a sufficient nonhearsay allegation based on personal knowledge establishing reasonable cause to believe that the age element of the offense was met. Since count four of the petition was jurisdictionally defective, that count must be dismissed, and the order of disposition and the order of fact-finding modified accordingly … . Matter of Diamond J. (Anonymous), 2015 NY Slip Op 09689, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)/EVIDENCE (AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE  MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)

,

STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.

The Second Department determined a statement made to law enforcement personnel by a juvenile respondent who was deemed incapacitated was admissible in the probable cause hearing which led to the juvenile’s commitment to the custody of the commissioner of mental health/mental retardation and developmental disabilities. The juvenile allegedly started a fire in his father’s house. Family Court found the juvenile to be incapacitated and therefore no fact-finding hearing was held. At the probable cause hearing (re: commitment of the juvenile) the juvenile’s statement, made after waiving his Miranda rights, was admitted in evidence:

… Family Court did not violate [the juvenile’s] due process rights by ordering his commitment based on a probable cause finding that depended, in part, on a written statement he made to law enforcement officials. The court’s finding that the appellant lacked the capacity to proceed to a fact-finding hearing did not equate to a finding that the appellant could not comprehend the Miranda warnings … that were administered by a police officer before the appellant made his statement. To be competent to proceed to a fact-finding hearing, a juvenile respondent must have the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist in his or her own defense (see Family Ct Act § 301.2[13]). In contrast, “[a]n individual may validly waive Miranda rights so long as the immediate import of those warnings is comprehended, regardless of his or her ignorance of the mechanics by which the fruits of that waiver may be used later in the criminal process” … . Thus, the court’s incapacity finding did not undermine the reliability of the appellant’s statement with respect to whether there was probable cause to believe that the appellant committed an offense. Further, the statement was, prima facie, competent for that purpose, even if it might later be rendered inadmissible by extrinsic proof … . Matter of Jaime E. S. (Anonymous), 2015 NY Slip Op 09694, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)/EVIDENCE (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.

The Second Department determined defendants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the cement patch over which plaintiff allegedly tripped was a trivial defect. The defendants did not submit evidence of the dimensions of the defect:

“[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Photographs that fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and photographs which the plaintiff claimed accurately depicted the condition that allegedly caused her to fall. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmovant … , the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence was elicited as to the dimensions of the defect at the time of the accident. In light of the photographs, which depict the irregular nature of the sidewalk, as well as the time, place, and circumstance of the plaintiff’s fall, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the condition at issue was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Mazza v Our Lady of Perpetual Help R.C. Church, 2015 NY Slip Op 09657, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

NEGLIGENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/EVIDENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT)

,

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)

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