You are here: / Evidence
,

Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the respondents should not have been granted.  Plaintiffs had raised a question of fact by producing circumstantial evidence that the respondents, not New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employees, were responsible for the placement of a “shoe paddle” in a subway car which fell and injured plaintiff. The court explained the criteria for circumstantial evidence in this context:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff’s proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant’s negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff’s] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote’ or technical’ to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … .

Here, the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering the testimony of two of their employees denying that they placed the shoe paddle in the subject door. In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the testimony from NYCTA employees, including the testimony of the cleaner of the subject train, that no NYCTA employee placed the shoe paddle in the door, and that the respondents were the only contractors present at the site during the relevant time period. The plaintiffs also submitted NYCTA records showing that as of 11:40 p.m., about three hours prior to the incident, all shoe paddles were in their holders and all doors were free and moving properly. Thus, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this circumstantial evidence gives rise to a rational inference that it was more likely or more reasonable that an employee of the respondents placed the shoe paddle in the subject door than an NYCTA employee … . Hernandez v Alstom Transp., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05911, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Warrantless Search of Parolee’s Car by Detective Was Valid–Detective Was Effectively Functioning As a Parole Officer, Was Aware of an Arrest Warrant Based Upon Defendant’s Alleged Parole Violations, and Was Aware the Defendant, as a Parolee, Had Consented In Writing to the Search of His Person and Property

The Second Department determined the warrantless search of a parolee’s car by a detective who was exercising parole-warrant responsibilities was valid. The detective was aware of defendant’s parole violations and the related warrant for defendant’s arrest. The detective was also aware that defendant, as a parolee, had consented in writing the search of his person and property:

While a person on parole is not denied the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the status of a parolee is always relevant and may be critical in evaluating the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure. A search which would be unlawful if directed against an ordinary citizen may be proper if conducted against a parolee … . The special circumstances and close supervision that come with being a parolee must be considered when determining if a search is reasonable … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the detective’s search of the car was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty” by dint of the detective’s parole responsibilities as a member of the Joint Apprehension Warrant Squad … . Here, no relevant distinction exists between the detective and the defendant’s parole officer … . At the time of the search, the detective was aware that the defendant had violated the terms of his parole, that as a result a warrant had been issued for the defendant’s arrest …, and that the defendant had consented in writing to a search of his person and property. Additionally, the detective was aware that the car was registered to the defendant, the defendant had acknowledged that the car was his, and a known source had said that she had been told that the defendant had just been in the car with a gun … . People v McMillan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05702, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the People were required to provide the pre-trial statutory notice of the intent to introduce evidence of an out-of-court identification of the defendant by the officer (Detective Vanacore) who viewed the underlying controlled drug purchase (by an undercover officer) from across the street. The error was deemed harmless however.  Noting that the identification at issue was not so free from the risk of undue suggestiveness as to render the identification merely “confirmatory,” the court offered a clear explanation of the reasons for the statutory pre-trial notice requirement:

“CPL 710.30 could not be clearer” … . When the People intend to offer at trial “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant either at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such,” the statute requires the People to notify the defense of such intention within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). Not only is “[t]he statutory mandate . . . plain” but the procedure is “simple” … . The People serve their notice upon defendant, the defendant has an opportunity to move to suppress and the court may hold a Wade hearing (see id.). If the People fail to provide notice, the prosecution may be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial.

The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures” … . In enacting the notice requirement, the Legislature “attempt[ed] to deal effectively with the reality that not all police-arranged identifications are free from unconstitutional taint” … .

The purpose of the notice requirement is two-fold: it provides the defense with “an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the [evidence procured by the state] and prepare the defense accordingly” and “permits an orderly hearing and determination of the issue of the fact . . . thereby preventing the interruption of trial to challenge initially the admission into evidence of the [identification]” … . Thus, the statute contemplates “pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony where it is alleged that an improper procedure occurred” … . * * *

Detective Vanacore’s surveillance of defendant does not constitute an “observation of . . . defendant . . . so clear that the identification could not be mistaken” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness … . Therefore, the People were required to serve their notice concerning Detective Vanacore’s observations. People v Pacquette, 2015 NY Slip Op 05595, CtApp 6-30-15

 

,

Unsigned Deposition Transcripts and Party Admission in Police Report Admissible as Evidence in Support of Summary Judgment Motion

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a vehicle accident case, the Second Department noted the unsigned deposition transcripts of both plaintiff and defendant were admissible for purposes of the motion.  The court also noted that a party admission included in a police report was admissible, while the hearsay report itself was not:

“[T]he failure to submit an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts is not necessarily fatal to a motion where . . . the moving party submits other proof, such as deposition testimony … . Here, the defendant’s certified deposition transcript, although unsigned, was admissible since it was his own testimony that he was proffering in support of his motion and, in effect, he adopted it as accurate … . In addition, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which was unsigned, was also admissible for the purpose of the defendant’s motion, since the transcript was certified by the reporter and the plaintiff did not challenge its accuracy … .

With respect to the police accident report submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, it was not certified as a business record and thus constituted inadmissible hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a]…), except for that portion of the report which contained a party admission by the plaintiff that she did not have a recollection of the accident … . Gezelter v Pecora, 2015 NY Slip Op 05440, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

The Totality of Circumstances Provided the Police Officer with Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and Thereby Justified Pursuit of the Defendant

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress a gun thrown away during a foot pursuit by a police officer was properly denied.  Unusual activity in and around a car (a “Malibu”) in a high crime area gave the police an objective, credible reason to approach the car. Under the totality of the circumstances, when defendant began walking away, the police officer (Detective Tait), having a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, properly pursued the defendant:

“Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s] the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . “Flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit” … . Here, Detective Talt had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the defendant’s flight, combined with the unusual activity of the occupants of the Malibu, Detective Talt’s knowledge that that specific location was a high-crime area, and his knowledge that contraband could be hidden under a car hood. Accordingly, the court properly declined to suppress the gun. People v Jennings, 2015 NY Slip Op 05497, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Failure to Take Steps to Verify and Corroborate the Information from a Confidential Source Required Annulment and Expungement of the Misbehavior Determination

The Third Department determined the absence of information corroborating the confidential-source allegations which were the basis for the misbehavior report, coupled with the hearing officer’s failure to interview either the source or the sergeant who obtained the confidential information, required annulment and expungement of the misbehavior determination:

… [C]onfidential information may provide substantial evidence supporting a prison disciplinary determination as long as it is sufficiently detailed and probative that the Hearing Officer may make an independent assessment of the reliability of the information … . Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer failed to independently assess the reliability of the confidential information considered here. Based upon our review of the record, we must agree. The misbehavior report was the primary evidence supporting the disciplinary determination, as the sergeant who prepared it did not testify at the hearing. The sergeant based the report upon confidential memoranda that she prepared after obtaining incriminating information directly from the confidential source. The memoranda, however, do not contain additional information or corroborating details to facilitate verification of the source’s reliability … . Moreover, the Hearing Officer did not personally interview either the source or the sergeant who obtained the information. In view of this, we agree with petitioner that the necessary independent assessment of the confidential information was lacking and that the determination must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record … . Matter of Cooper v Annucci, 2015 NY Slip Op 05548, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

,

Evidence of Prior Uncharged Offenses Involving the Same Behavior and Against the Same Victim as Alleged in the Charged Offense Deemed Admissible to Prove Motive, Intent and to Provide Necessary Background Information About the Nature of the Relationship Between the Victim and Defendant

The Fourth Department determined evidence of prior uncharged sexual abuse of the victim, which included actions attributed to the defendant in the charged offense (abuse when the victim was unconscious from alcohol intoxication), was properly admitted. The court found the uncharged crime evidence was admissible to prove intent and motive, and to provide background information about the nature of the relationship between the victim and defendant:

We reject defendant’s contention … that the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior uncharged sexual abuse of the victim which, according to the victim’s testimony, also occurred while she was unconscious from alcohol intoxication. “The general rule is that evidence of . . . uncharged crimes may not be offered to show defendant’s bad character or his propensity towards crime but may be admitted only if the acts help establish some element of the crime under consideration or are relevant because of some recognized exception to the general rule” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence of uncharged crimes was admissible to establish intent and motive under the first two exceptions specifically identified in Molineux’s illustrative and nonexhaustive list … . Specifically, the disputed evidence was relevant to the issue whether defendant intended to commit the instant crime for the purpose of sexual gratification (see Penal Law §§ 130.00 [3]; 130.65 [2]), and to establish defendant’s motive in providing a large quantity of alcohol to the victim. Consequently, “the evidence in this case was not propensity evidence, but was probative of [defendant’s] motive and intent to [sexually] assault his victim” … . Moreover, the evidence was also admissible under a more recently recognized Molineux exception, i.e., to “provide[] necessary background information on the nature of the relationship” between defendant and the victim … and thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People to present the evidence at issue … . People v Leonard, 2015 NY Slip Op 05314. 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been granted.  The hearsay statement made by Jackson which exonerated defendant did not meet the criteria for a statement against penal interest and should not have been admitted in evidence.  The evidence involved was not newly discovered.  Defendant did not provide the evidence at trial out of fear of retaliation by gang members:

… [T]he court erred in admitting Jackson’s statement in evidence at the hearing, and, in any event, the statement would not be admissible at trial. This is vital because ” [i]mplicit in th[e] ground for vacating a judgment of conviction is that the newly discovered evidence be admissible’ ” … . Here, the court admitted the statement at the hearing as a declaration against penal interest, but it is well settled that “[f]or a statement against penal interest to be admissible the interest compromised must be such as to all but rule out’ motive to falsify, [and] the declarant must be conscious of the consequences of his statement at the time it is made . . . Those assurances of probative value, which might in a proper case substitute for cross-examination, were not present in this case” … . Although a less stringent standard applies where, as here, the declaration is offered by defendant to exonerate himself rather than by the People, to inculpate him… , none of the requirements was met here. To the contrary, the statement of the gang member was provided only after he was assured that he would not be prosecuted for any information that he provided, thus removing any indicia of reliability regarding that information… . …

Even assuming, arguendo, that Jackson’s statement was properly admitted at the hearing, and further assuming, arguendo, that the information he provided is material, noncumulative, and does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence, we conclude that the information was known to defendant at the time of the trial … . We cannot agree with the court that it was in effect “newly discovered” based on defendant’s fear of physical harm to himself and his family. “A defendant who chooses to withhold evidence should not be given a new trial on the basis of the evidence thus withheld’ ” … . Therefore, the evidence does not satisfy the requirement that it was “discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial” … . People v Backus, 2015 NY Slip Op 05330, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Insufficient Break Between “Unwarned” Statement and Statement Made Subsequently After the Miranda Warnings Were Given—Entire Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Fourth Department determined there was an insufficient break (10 minutes) between an “unwarned” inculpatory statement made by the defendant and a subsequent statement made after the Miranda warnings were given.  The entire statement should have been suppressed:

“When, as part of a continuous chain of events, a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, any statements made in response as well as any additional statements made after the warnings are administered and questioning resumes must be suppressed” … . Where, however, “there is such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning,” his or her statements in response to renewed questioning after he or she has received Miranda warnings and waived his or her constitutional rights may be admitted … . Here, the initial questioning by the second officer, although brief, produced an inculpatory statement directly related to the instant crime… , and the second interrogation, which produced another inculpatory statement, occurred less than 10 minutes later and in the same location … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not establish that “a reasonable suspect in defendant’s position would have perceived a marked change in the tenor of his engagement with [the] police” … . We thus conclude that “it cannot be said that there was such a definite, pronounced break’ in the interrogation that defendant was returned to the position of one who was not under the influence of the initial improper questioning” … . People v Walker, 2015 NY Slip Op 05313, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Not Sufficiently Corroborated for Admission Into Evidence

The Second Department determined Family Court properly refused to admit evidence of the child’s out-of-court statements in an abuse and neglect proceeding because the statements were not corroborated:

A child’s prior out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect, provided that these hearsay statements are corroborated so as to ensure their reliability … . Any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child’s previous statements shall be sufficient corroboration (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]…). There is a threshold of reliability that the evidence must meet … . The Family Court has considerable discretion to decide whether the child’s out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have, in fact, been reliably corroborated … . Here, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that the statements of the subject child Anthony W. were insufficient to corroborate the statements of the subject child Sally W. as to the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated upon her. Matter of Gerald W. (Anne R.), 2015 NY Slip Op 05198, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

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