You are here: / Evidence
, ,

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Hearsay Statement Did Not Meet the “Reliability” Requirement for Admissibility as a Statement Against Penal Interest

The First Department determined defendant’s friend’s alleged hearsay statement that he, not defendant, assaulted the victim was properly precluded. The statement did not meet the “reliability” requirement for admissibility as a statement against penal interest (an exception to the hearsay rule):

This hearsay evidence did not satisfy the reliability requirement for admissibility under the exception for declarations against penal interest …, or under a due process theory … . Defendant’s friend told defense counsel that he neither committed the assault nor made the alleged statements, the statements were contradicted by trial witnesses who testified that the friend was nearby but did not participate in the assault, the statements were allegedly made to persons closely aligned with defendant, and recorded phone calls raised suspicion that defendant had made efforts to manufacture exculpatory evidence. All these factors undermined any reliability this hearsay evidence may have had … . People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 04781, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Alleging Sexual Touching Were Not Corroborated—the Child’s Repeating the Same Allegations to Several Persons Does Not Constitute Corroboration—Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings Reversed

The Third Department determined that the child’s out-of-court stated alleged sexual touching (by Makenzie) were not sufficiently corroborated. The findings of neglect and derivative neglect based on the statements were reversed:

While the out-of-court statements made by a child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect are admissible in Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings, they must be corroborated in order to “be sufficient to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a]…). The purpose of this requirement is to establish the reliability of the hearsay statements, and Family Court has considerable discretion to determine the sufficiency of corroborative evidence … . Such a statement “may be corroborated by any evidence tending to support its reliability, and a relatively low degree of corroborative evidence is sufficient” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that petitioner failed to satisfy its burden here.

Family Court’s conclusion, based upon our decision in Matter of Brandon UU. (193 AD2d 835 [1993]), that sufficient corroboration existed because the child pointed to the area where she claimed respondent had pinched her, is misplaced. The determination in Matter of Brandon UU. (supra) was based on the child’s consistent account of sexual abuse coupled with the expert testimony that the child was being truthful (id. at 837). Here, there was no expert testimony and the child’s demonstration, without more, is part of the out-of-court statement itself and insufficient as corroboration … .

Likewise, there is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the child’s repetition of consistent accounts of the abuse to the grandmother, social worker and detective serve as sufficient corroboration. It is well settled that “repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate [that]; child’s prior account” … . The lack of any proof “validating the child’s account or relating any of her past or present conduct or characteristics to the alleged sexual abuse” requires reversal of the finding of neglect as to Makenzie on the ground that the out-of-court statements were not sufficiently corroborated … . Matter of Katrina CC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04094, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

, , ,

Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division properly found that the “unwarned” statement made by 11-year-old Delroy should have been suppressed. The statement was made in Delroy’s apartment when a police officer asked him “what happened?”. Under the circumstances, “a reasonable 11 year old would not have felt free to leave” at the time the question was asked.  Therefore the question amounted to “custodial interrogation” in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the Appellate Division, ruled the error was not harmless because the statement undermined Delroy’s defense of justification. There was no question Delroy stabbed the 12-year-old complainant.  But questions were raised by the trial testimony whether the stabbing was in self-defense. With respect to proof burdens for “harmless error” and the justification defense, the Court of Appeals explained:

A trial court’s error involving a constitutionally protected right is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . “The People must show that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] [i]n deciding whether the People have met this burden, we consider both the overall strength of the case against defendant and the importance to that case of the improperly admitted evidence” … .

The record shows that while there was no doubt that Delroy had stabbed the complainant, there was evidence supporting Delroy’s justification defense. “The defense of justification . . . permits one to use deadly physical force on another when one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or imminently will be used by such other person” … . The People bear the burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

…[T]he People have not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongly admitted evidence might have contributed to the guilty finding. Matter of Delroy S., 2015 NY Slip Op 04676, CtApp 6-4-15

 

,

Finding of Neglect of One Child by Consent Is Admissible In a Derivative Neglect Proceeding Re: Another Child—Criteria for Derivative Neglect Explained

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it held that a finding of neglect of one child (Akasha) by consent could not be used to demonstrate the neglect of another child (William, Jr.).  The court went on to explain the criteria for a derivative neglect finding (not all of which is quoted here):

The entry of a finding of neglect of one child may not be made without a factual basis, even upon consent … . Thus, entry of a finding of neglect as to a child clearly constitutes proof that that child was neglected, even if the order was entered upon consent … . Accordingly, such a fact-finding order is admissible with respect to the issue of whether the parent derivatively neglected another child (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a];[i]…). Consequently, the Family Court erred in holding that the neglect finding as to Akasha was not admissible evidence in the neglect proceeding as to William, Jr. The neglect finding as to Akasha was proof that the mother neglected Akasha and was, thus, admissible evidence in the proceeding regarding William, Jr., even though the finding as to Akasha was entered on the mother’s consent.

Further, while the proof of the neglect as to Akasha was admissible with respect to this proceeding alleging derivative neglect of William, Jr., “there is no per se rule that a finding of neglect of one sibling requires a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the other siblings”… . Rather, “the focus of the inquiry to determine whether derivative neglect is present is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood. * * *  Matter of William N, 2014 NY Slip Op 04012, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

, , ,

New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable

The Second Department determined a new civil commitment trial was required because the experts based their testimony in part upon hearsay which had not been demonstrated to be reliable:

As recently held by the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y. (22 NY3d 95, 109), “[d];ue process requires any hearsay basis evidence to meet minimum requirements of reliability and relevance before it can be admitted at an article 10 proceeding. In article 10 trials, hearsay basis evidence is admissible if it satisfies two criteria. First, the proponent must demonstrate through evidence that the hearsay is reliable. Second, the court must determine that the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert’s]; opinion substantially outweighs [its]; prejudicial effect’ (cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703). These reliability and substantial relevance requirements provide a necessary counterweight to the deference juries may accord hearsay evidence simply because an expert has propounded it.”… .

Here, both of the State’s experts testified to the appellant’s convictions, as well as unproven acts, which formed the basis of their opinion that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality. The experts provided considerable hearsay testimony concerning these unproven acts, relying, inter alia, upon hearsay evidence within probation reports and other documents, and not personal knowledge. The State failed to demonstrate through other evidence that the aforementioned hearsay testimony was reliable … . As the State failed to establish that the hearsay was reliable, the Court need not determine whether the probative value of such hearsay outweighed its prejudicial effect… . Matter of State of New York v Walter R, 2014 NY Slip Op 04020, 2nd Dept 6=4=14

 

, ,

Res Ipsa Locquitur Doctrine Not Available Where Multiple Defendants Did Not Have Concurrent Control Over the Alleged Malpractice, i.e., Leaving Surgical Packing in the Wound

The Second Department determined the hospital defendants and the defendant rehabilitation facility (Parker) were entitled to summary judgment in a case where surgical packing was left in the wound.  The surgeon was not an employee of the hospital and there were no allegations hospital staff negligently followed the surgeons instructions.  The court explained why the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to the hospital defendants and the defendant rehabilitation facility:

The plaintiff relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to relieve him of the burden of proving which defendant had been negligent and when. Although res ipsa loquitur may be utilized where more than one defendant may have been in control …, the responsible defendants must share exclusive control of the instrumentality causing injury. Here, neither the hospital defendants nor Parker were acting jointly or concurrently with each other. They did not have concurrent control of the surgical packing that allegedly caused the injury. The treatment here was performed by different entities at different times in different locations. This is not a situation where several physicians participated in a single surgical procedure and, as a result, have the burden to “explain their actions and conduct in the operating room wherein plaintiff was injured” … . Accordingly, under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s reliance upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in opposition to the motion is misplaced, inasmuch as he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the requisite elements of the doctrine … . Buesko v Gordon, 2014 NY Slip Op 03969, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

, ,

As a Contingent Remainder of the Subject Trust, the “Charitable Trust” Had the Right to Intervene in a Proceeding to Remove and Replace the Trustee of the Subject Trust

The Second Department determined that the contingent remainder, Charitable Trust, of the subject trust had standing to intervene in a proceeding which removed the father and appointed the mother trustee of the subject trust:

…[T]he Charitable Trust, as a contingent remainder of the subject trust, has standing to intervene in this proceeding …, and a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding …. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted it leave to intervene as a party respondent (see CPLR 1012[a];[2], [3]…). Upon granting the Charitable Trust leave to intervene as a party respondent, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion which was to vacate the order …removing the father as the trustee of the subject trust and appointing the mother as successor trustee of the subject trust, and thereupon directed that the petition be amended by adding the Charitable Trust as a party respondent and that the Charitable Trust be permitted to serve a verified answer and counterclaims if it be so advised. Matter of Ramm v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04015, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

,

“Preamble” Read to Defendant Before the Miranda Warnings Neutralized the Effect of the Warnings—Defendant’s Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted because the “preamble” read to him before he waived his right to remain silent neutralized the effect of the Miranda warnings. “Before the defendant was read his Miranda rights, the detective investigator said to him (1) “if you agree to speak with us, you may, if you wish, explain what you did and what occurred at that date, time, and place,” (2) “[i]f . . . you have an alibi . . . and you want to tell us where you were, we will ask that you please give us as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with,” and (3) “[i]f you agree to speak to us and your version of the events of that day differs from what we have heard, you may, if you so choose, tell us your story.” Thus, a clear implication was conveyed to the defendant that he ought to speak to the detective investigator and the assistant district attorney present at the interview in order to set forth his version of events so that they could be investigated. As such, the preamble here … rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights …”. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 04517, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

, ,

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone Other than the Defendant Contributed DNA to a Mixture from At Least Three Persons—Conviction Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was against the weight of the evidence. The medical examiner testified there was a mixture of DNA from at least three persons found on the weapon and defendant “could” have been a contributor to that mixture. “In other words, the medical examiner could not rule out the reasonable possibility that another unrelated individual could match the DNA profile.”  The court explained its role in a “weight of the evidence,” as opposed to a “legal insufficiency,” analysis:

On this appeal, defendant does not ask us to reverse his convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees on the ground that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support such convictions. Instead, defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. An appellate court weighing the evidence “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony'” … . “If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable” and if the “trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, the appellate court may set aside the verdict” … . When an appellate court performs weight of the evidence review, it sits, in effect, as a “thirteenth juror” … .

We agree with defendant that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence … . The evidence failed to connect defendant with a pistol that had been discarded during a shooting incident. People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 04401, 1st Dept 5-26-15

 

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