You are here: / Evidence
,

Under the Facts, the Prosecutor Was Not Obligated to Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury—Defendant Did Not Exercise His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground the prosecutor did not charge the grand jury on the justification defense was properly denied. The indictment alleged the defendant attacked the victim, Valdez, with a machete. At trial, the defendant testified that Valdez attacked him with a baton and he used a knife in self-defense. It was revealed at trial that Valdez did in fact have a baton at the time of incident, that Valdez had not told the police about the baton, and that, months later, he told the prosecutor about the baton before the matter was presented to the grand jury. The defendant chose not to testify before the grand jury. No mention of the baton, or that the defendant made a statement claiming he acted in self-defense, was made in the grand jury proceedings and the grand jury was not instructed on the justification defense. The First Department held that the prosecutor’s failure, in the grand jury proceedings, to present evidence the victim had a baton, or that defendant stated he acted in self-defense, did not amount to misconduct justifying the dismissal of the indictment. The court emphasized the defendant’s failure to exercise his right to testify before the grand jury to present exculpatory evidence, and explained the nature of the prosecutor’s duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury:

It is axiomatic that a prosecutor, in presenting evidence and potential charges to a grand jury, is ” charged with the duty not only to secure indictments but also to see that justice is done'” … . The role of the grand jury is not only to investigate criminal activity to see whether criminal charges are warranted but also to protect individuals from needless and unfounded charges … . For that reason, justification, as an exculpatory defense that if accepted eliminates any grounds for prosecution, should be presented to the grand jury when warranted by the evidence … . However, a prosecutor, in presenting a case to a grand jury, is “not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in [the People’s] possession that is favorable to the accused . . . In the ordinary case, it is the defendant who, through the exercise of his own right to testify . . . , brings exculpatory evidence to the attention of the Grand Jury” … . Thus, a prosecutor is not obligated to present to the grand jury a defendant’s exculpatory statement made to the police upon arrest … . Where, however, a prosecutor introduces a defendant’s inculpatory statement to the grand jury, he is obligated to introduce an exculpatory statement given during the course of the same interrogation which amplifies the inculpatory statement if it supports a justification defense … . * * *

Assuming arguendo that, as claimed by defendant and denied by the People, the ADA did know about the … baton at the time of the grand jury proceedings, dismissal of the indictment based on the failure to charge the grand jury on justification still would not be warranted. “[A] Grand Jury proceeding is not a mini trial . . . The prosecutor . . . need not disclose certain forms of exculpatory evidence . . . [Nor is] the prosecutor . . . obligated to present the evidence or make statements to the grand jurors in the manner most favorable to the defense” … . As previously noted, a prosecutor is “not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in [the People’s] possession that is favorable to the accused . . . In the ordinary case, it is the defendant who, through the exercise of his own right to testify . . . , brings exculpatory evidence to the attention of the Grand Jury”… . People v Morel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06865, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Controverted Custody-Related Issues Cannot Be Decided Based Upon “In Chambers” Conferences, A Full Hearing Is Required

The Second Department determined a new trial on all custody issues was necessary because Supreme Court refused to allow testimony on certain controverted allegations (parental alienation and use of corporal punishment). Supreme Court erroneously relied upon extensive “in camera” discussions which, Supreme Court determined, had revealed the issues to be “sporadic and inconsequential.”  The Second Department noted that all controverted custody issues should be decided only after the issues are addressed in a hearing:

” ‘[A]s a general rule, it is error to make an order respecting custody based upon controverted allegations without the benefit of a full hearing’ … . Here, the Supreme Court, after holding ‘extensive’ in camera discussions with counsel on the issues of excessive corporal punishment and parental alienation, refused to allow testimony on these controverted issues, stating that they were ‘sporadic and inconsequential.’ Instead, the Supreme Court directed that only ‘positive’ aspects of the parties’ parenting be presented on the record. This was error, since the court cannot base a significant portion of its decision on off-the-record conferences …”. Minjin Lee v Jianchuang Xu, 2015 NY Slip Op 06784, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Plaintiff’s Statements in Hospital Record Not Admissible—No Relation to Diagnosis and Not Admissions

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in a rear-end collision case. Plaintiff was driving 30 miles an hour when her car was struck from behind, indicating defendant-driver did not maintain a safe distance between the two cars. The court noted that statements made by the plaintiff which were memorialized in a hospital record were inadmissible because the statements were not necessary for diagnostic purposes and were not admissions:

Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through her affidavit, that she was operating her vehicle in a lane of the Cross Bronx Expressway, proceeding straight ahead at approximately 30 miles per hour with her foot on the gas pedal, when her vehicle was struck in the rear within her lane of travel, suddenly and without warning, by the defendants’ vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that [defendant-driver] was negligent in failing to maintain a safe distance behind her vehicle, and that she did not contribute to the happening of the accident … . * * *

… [T]he defendants could not rely on certain statements in the plaintiff’s hospital records to raise a triable issue of fact, since, under the circumstances presented here, the details of how the plaintiff sustained particular injuries and how the accident occurred in this matter were not useful for purposes of her medical diagnosis or treatment and, accordingly, a medical chart entry containing such hearsay statements could not be considered to have been prepared in the regular course of the hospital’s business … . Accordingly, the statements contained in the chart entry are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, the entry was not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s description of the accident, as provided in her affidavit. Consequently, the entry was not admissible as an admission by the plaintiff … . Service v McCoy, 2015 NY Slip Op 06801, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Source of Information in Police Report Unknown—Reversible Error to Admit Hearsay in the Report

The Second Department determined a new trial was necessary in this pedestrian-injury case because defendant was allowed to place inadmissible hearsay, contained within a police report, in evidence. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by defendants’ car when she was crossing the street in a crosswalk with the light in her favor. Defendants alleged plaintiff was riding a bicycle and darted out between two cars. The police report supported defendants’ version. However, the officer who wrote the report testified he had no recollection of the source of the information in the report. The Second Department explained why none of the exceptions to the hearsay rule applied to the information in the report:

“Facts stated in a police report that are hearsay are not admissible unless they constitute an exception to the hearsay rule” … . Pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), a police accident report is admissible as a business record so long as the report is made based upon the officer’s personal observations and while carrying out police duties … . If information contained in a police accident report was not based upon the police officer’s personal observations, it may nevertheless be admissible as a business record “if the person giving the police officer the information contained in the report was under a business duty to relate the facts to him [or her]” … . If the person giving the police officer the information was not under a business duty to give the statement to the police officer, such information “may be proved by a business record only if the statement qualifies [under some other] hearsay exception, such as an admission” … . In other words, “each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, must be acting within the course of regular business conduct or the declaration must meet the test of some other hearsay exception” … . “The proponent of hearsay evidence must establish the applicability of a hearsay-rule exception” … . Memenza v Cole, 2015 NY Slip Op 06789, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Raised a Triable Issue of Fact Under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur—Plaintiff Alleged a Bone Was Fractured During Surgery

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a triable issue fact in a medical malpractice action under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The complaint alleged that, during surgery on her shoulder, a bone was fractured. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“[R]es ipsa loquitur [is] available in a narrow category of factually simple medical malpractice cases requir[ing] no expert to enable the jury to reasonably conclude that the accident would not happen without negligence” … . The doctrine is available when (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the event is caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the event was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “The doctrine is generally available to establish a prima facie case when an unexplained injury in an area which is remote from the treatment site occurs while the patient is anesthetized” … . “In a multiple defendant action in which a plaintiff relies on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff is not required to identify the negligent actor [and] [t]hat rule is particularly appropriate in a medical malpractice case . . . in which the plaintiff has been anesthetized” … . “To rely on res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury. It is enough that the evidence supporting the three conditions afford a rational basis for concluding that it is more likely than not that the injury was caused by [the] defendant’s negligence. Stated otherwise, all that is required is that the likelihood of other possible causes of the injury be so reduced that the greater probability lies at defendant’s door” … . Swoboda v Fontanetta, 2015 NY Slip Op 06804, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re: an Independent Medical Examination (IME)

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment which argued the insurer was not obligated to provide no-fault insurance coverage because defendant did not appear for a scheduled independent medical examination (IME).  In order to be entitled to summary judgment, the insurer was required to show that it notified defendant of the IME within 30 days of the insurer’s receipt of the verification form from the defendant. Plaintiff’s papers did not state when the verification form was received by it.  Therefore, the plaintiff could not show it complied with the 30-day-notice requirement. The court noted that the issue could be determined as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured in reply papers:

“Contrary to the position taken by the dissent, the issue of whether plaintiff has failed to establish that the notices for the IMEs were timely, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(d), presents a question of law which this Court can review. Unlike the dissent, we find that plaintiff was required to submit proof of the timely notice in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Any belated attempt by plaintiff to cure this deficiency in its prima facie showing by submitting evidence for the first time in reply would have been improper…”. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06761, 1st Dept 9-15-15

 

,

Testimony Which Could Have Added Relevant Evidence About the Nature of Plaintiff’s Work (Pre-Injury) and the Effects of the Injuries Should Not Have been Excluded as “Cumulative”

The First Department determined the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) action was entitled to a new trial because the trial judge should not have excluded the testimony of a co-worker and plaintiff’s wife as “cumulative:” The court explained:

“… [A] new trial on damages is necessitated, because we disagree with the court’s preclusion of testimony by plaintiff’s wife and coworker. Testimony is properly precluded as cumulative when it would neither contradict nor add to that of other witnesses … . Here, the testimony of plaintiff’s wife and his coworker would have added to the testimony of other witnesses. First, the coworker saw plaintiff fall, and his testimony as to the impact to plaintiff’s foot could have been highly probative of plaintiff’s claim that the continuing pain in his foot was caused by the accident and did not pre-exist it, as defendants argued. Further, the coworker could have testified as to the particular duties carried out by plaintiff as a heavy-construction carpenter, which would have supported plaintiff’s position that as a result of his injury he could no longer perform that kind of work. To be sure, plaintiff testified about his job duties, but the coworker’s status as a disinterested witness would have given his testimony added value to the jury … . Nor was the proffered testimony of plaintiff’s wife likely to be cumulative, notwithstanding her not having asserted a derivative claim. The wife had a unique perspective on her husband’s condition before and after the accident, and could have assisted the jury in further understanding the extent of his disability and of his pain and suffering.” Segota v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06764, 1st Dept 9-15-15

 

,

Evidence of Photo-Array Identification Properly Allowed to Counter Inference Line-Up Was Suggestive (Defendant Restrained in Line-Up)

The Second Department determined the identification of the defendant in a photo-array was properly allowed in evidence because the defendant was restrained in the line-up, which could give rise to an inference the line-up was suggestive:

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly allowed the admission of evidence concerning the pretrial photographic identification of the defendant made by one of the two complainants. The evidence elicited at a suppression hearing established that the defendant had to be restrained during the lineup at which the complainants identified him due to his uncooperative behavior. Since the restraint of the defendant during the lineup could give rise to an inference that the lineup was suggestive, and the lineup identification made by the complainants was therefore unreliable, the People were properly permitted to counter this inference by introducing evidence of the prior photographic identification… . People v Adamson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06672, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Unduly Suggestive Line-Up Required a New Trial

The Second Department ordered a new trial because the hearing court erroneously concluded the line-up was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was the only person in the line-up wearing a red shirt (which was a prominent part of the description of the assailant by the complainant).  A new trial was necessary because the People did not have the opportunity to demonstrate whether there was an independent source for the complainant’s identification:

The hearing court erred in concluding that the pretrial identification procedure, a lineup, was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was conspicuously displayed in that lineup. He was the only lineup participant dressed in a red shirt, the item of clothing which figured prominently in the description of the assailant’s clothing that the complainant gave to the police. Thus, at the lineup, the defendant’s red shirt improperly drew attention to his person … .

The hearing court’s erroneous determination effectively precluded the People from proffering evidence as to whether there was an independent source for the complainant’s in-court identification. Since the People did not have an opportunity to establish the existence of an independent source, if any, a new trial is required, to be preceded by an independent source hearing … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 06681, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Recovery Under the Doctrine of Quantum Meruit Was Proper—Proof of Damages Was Sufficient

The Second Department determined defendants, who did construction work without a written contract, were entitled to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit.  The court noted that proof of damages may be based solely on oral testimony as long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs:

The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum merit are: (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) the expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services rendered … . Here, the trial court properly determined that the … defendants performed services in good faith, that the plaintiff accepted those services, and that the … defendants expected to be compensated therefor. The court also properly determined that the … defendants provided sufficient evidence of the reasonable value of their services. The unsigned agreement furnished evidence of such value … . In addition, the … defendants presented proposals that they submitted to the plaintiff for payment in connection with additional work that they performed, invoices and proof of payments to subcontractors, and invoices and proof of payments to suppliers of materials and equipment. The fair and reasonable value of the … defendants’ services may be properly based on evidence concerning the amount that they billed the plaintiff for such services, and the amounts that subcontractors billed them for their services and for costs of supplies and equipment … .

Moreover, “[p]roof of damages may be based solely on oral testimony as long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs” … . The record demonstrates that the … defendants, who had 20 years of experience in construction and had built over 100 homes, had knowledge of the actual costs of the services being provided … . Therefore, the … defendants’ testimony provided further evidence of the reasonable value of the services performed … . Johnson v Robertson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06658, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

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