You are here: / Evidence
, , , , ,

FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED THE CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed. Therefore the child’s placement in foster should not have been continued by the court. The First Department also noted that mother’s mental-health records from the period after the filing and after the dismissal of the neglect petition were improperly admitted:

We … find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue R.C.’s foster care placement for the reasons articulated in Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.) (30 NY3d 275 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that “Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition” … .

The “court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be raised at any stage of the action, and the court may . . . on its own motion . . . at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … .

Here, once the neglect petition against the mother was dismissed, Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue the child’s temporary removal from the mother’s care and placement in foster care … . Accordingly, it should have immediately returned the child to the mother’s care and terminated the child’s foster care placement. It erred when it determined that it could hold permanency hearings based on the pending neglect petition against the putative father, since the child was not removed from his care, but from the mother’s. … Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the child ever resided with the putative father and no indication that he ever sought custody of the child.

Furthermore, we find that the failure of Family Court to immediately return the child to the care of the mother after the dismissal of the neglect petition against her—as well as the subsequent protracted proceedings, including the dispositional hearing, which lasted nearly a year and a half—violated her due process rights … . Matter of R.C. (D.C.–R.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01859, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed and did not have the authority to continue the child’s placement in foster care.

Practice Point: The protracted proceedings after the dismissal of the neglect petition, during which the child remained in foster care, violated mother’s right to due process.

 

,

PROOF THAT THE WEAPON WAS LOADED WHEN IT WAS FOUND THE DAY AFTER DEFENDANT POSSESSED IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON-SECOND-DEGREE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on a count charging criminal possession of a weapon second degree, determined the People did not prove the firearm was loaded at the time defendant possessed it:

… [W]e find that [the evidence] was legally insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged under count 9 of the indictment, which pertained to the Intratec firearm. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when, inter alia, with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person possesses a loaded firearm (see Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]). Here, the evidence presented by the People …. was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant possessed the Intratec firearm in Queens on July 8, 2007. However, the People did not present any evidence that the Intratec firearm was loaded at the time that it was in the defendant’s possession in Queens on July 8, 2007, as charged under count 9 of the indictment … . Rather, the People merely presented evidence that the Intratec firearm was loaded at the time that it was found by the police in a garage in Brooklyn approximately one day later on July 9, 2007. Under these circumstances, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged under count 9 of the indictment … . People v Bostic, 2025 NY Slip Op 01816, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Proof that a firearm was loaded on July 9 does not prove the firearm was loaded when defendant possessed it on July 8.​

 

, , , ,

MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, who was representing herself, was deprived of her right to due process in this termination of parental rights proceeding by “a confluence of factors:”

“A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights”. Nonetheless, “[a] parent’s right to be present for fact-finding and dispositional hearings in proceedings to terminate parental rights is not absolute” … . “The child whose guardianship and custody is at stake also has a fundamental right to a prompt and permanent adjudication” … . “Thus, when faced with the unavoidable absence of a parent, a court must balance the respective rights and interests of both the parent and the child in determining whether to proceed” … .

Here … the mother was deprived of her due process right to be present in the proceedings seeking to terminate her parental rights. First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment … . Notably, the record does not indicate that the mother had a history of failing to appear, nor did the court apparently rely on that factor in deciding to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence … .

Furthermore, when the hearing continued one week later, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s requests, among other things, for a copy of her own court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, which, at that point, was in evidence, and for additional time to obtain a court transcript and to consult with her legal advisor. Perhaps most significantly, the court abused its discretion in excluding the mother from the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing, without the issuance of a warning and with knowledge of the mother’s diagnoses contained in the psychiatric evaluation … . Thus, on both dates of the hearing, the mother was left without an advocate … . Matter of Justina C. M. J. (Chantilly J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01805, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here mother was denied the right to be present in the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, was denied access to evidence and her request for an adjournment to consult with her legal advisor was denied. Cumulatively mother was denied her right to due process.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN PLACING HIM IN A ROOM WITH A PERSON WITH COVID; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THAT PERSON’S MEDICAL RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE HOSPITAL BECAME AWARE OF THE COVID DIAGNOSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of another’s medical records. Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in placing plaintiff in a room with a person with COVID. The sought medical records may reveal when the hospital became aware of the COVID diagnosis:

Although “discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … . CPLR 3101 (a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “What is material and necessary is left to the sound discretion of the lower courts and includes any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … .

Pursuant to CPLR 4504 (a), “a person authorized to practice medicine . . . shall not be allowed to disclose any information which [they] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable [them] to act in that capacity.” The physician-patient privilege may be overcome, however, where the plaintiff establishes that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to their claim … . Here, plaintiffs established that the nonparty patient’s hospital records would show when defendant, its agents, servants and employees became aware that the patient had tested positive for COVID-19 and that such information is material and necessary to establish whether defendant had notice that it was placing plaintiff in the same room as a person who had COVID-19 … . Martin v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01756, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery of another’s medical records because the records were “material and necessary to the prosecution of the action.”

 

,

IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s strangulation conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of the testimony of a police officer describing unrelated allegations of strangulation by other complainants deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… County Court erred in admitting in evidence testimony from a police officer who responded to the scene regarding his observations of other, unnamed complainants in prior, unspecified cases. The officer was permitted to testify that he had taken photographs “once or twice” of complainants who had “alleged strangulations,” and that he could not recall having observed bruises on those other complainants. The officer’s testimony was used by the People in order to explain that the lack of marks on the neck of the victim in the present case did not mean that defendant did not strangle her. Indeed, during closing argument the People invited the jury to “recall the testimony of [the officer], that he did not observe any signs of bruising on [the victim’s] neck. You’ll also recall that he has been to other strangulations and investigated those, and he didn’t find any injuries there either.” We conclude that the officer’s testimony regarding prior, unrelated cases is entirely irrelevant to the instant case, and that it was error to admit that “irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony” … . People v Iqbal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01746, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here a police officer’s vague testimony about unrelated allegations of strangulation involving complainants other than the victim in this strangulation case deprived defendant of a fair trial.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

IN A FACT-SPECIFIC OPINION, THE COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE APPELLATE DIVISION, DETERMINED THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE UNIVERSITY’S RULING THAT PETITIONER-STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT BY ENGAGING IN UNWANTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannatara, in a fact-specific analysis, determined the university’s ruling that petitioner, P.C., a university student, violated the Code of Student Responsibility by engaging in unwelcome sexual activity with another student, S.G., was supported by the evidence:

… [S]ubstantial evidence supports the determination that P.C. violated the Code of Student Responsibility by engaging in unwanted sexual activity with S.G. despite her physical resistance and loss of consciousness during separate encounters. Although some aspects of the sexual encounters may have been consensual, there is ample evidence that other aspects were not. S.G.’s unrebutted testimony was deemed credible and she provided consistent evidence, both in her written statement for the investigator and in her hearing testimony, that she tried unsuccessfully to physically remove P.C.’s hands from her neck during an encounter in the woods. Under the Code of Student Responsibility, her physical resistance is inconsistent with affirmative consent.

Similarly, with respect to the allegation that P.C. had sex with S.G. in the car without her affirmative consent, S.G. consistently maintained that she lost consciousness, woke up while P.C. was still having sex with her, and that P.C. then told her she had only been “out” for a moment. Under the Code, sexual activity must stop when a person is incapacitated by lack of consciousness or being asleep. Moreover, P.C.’s own text messages acknowledge the sexual contact and, to some degree, evince a consciousness of guilt.

The evidence adduced depicting unwelcome sexual conduct by P.C. constitutes substantial evidence supporting all three charges. In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Appellate Division majority improperly reweighed the evidence by relying on S.G.’s statements concerning consensual conduct that transpired earlier in the evening, to the exclusion of her testimony regarding the contact to which she did not consent, and disregarded the conclusion that P.C.’s text messages reflected a consciousness of guilt. Matter of P.C. v Stony Brook Univ., 2025 NY Slip Op 01566, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for some insight into the evidence which is sufficient to support a university’s ruling that a student should be suspended for violating the Code of Student Responsibility by engaging in unwanted sexual activity.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD USED ALCOHOL TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME WAS CONFLICTING AND INSUFFICIENT; IN ADDITION, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY OR UNDER SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT; THEREFORE 25 POINTS WERE TAKEN OFF DEFENDANT’S RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence did not support the finding that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offense. In addition the SORA court wrongly found that defendant was in custody or under supervision at the time of alleged misconduct. Therefore a total of 25 points were wrongly applied to the risk-level assessment:

… [I]n order to demonstrate that [defendant] was abusing . . . alcohol at the time of the offense, the People [were required to] show by clear and convincing evidence that [defendant] used alcohol in excess . . . at the time of the crime” … . Here, the victim informed a caseworker that, on the night of that incident, defendant had been “outside by the fire drinking.” Defendant’s ex-wife also indicated in her victim impact statement that defendant was “drunk” on the night of that incident, but it is unclear whether the source of her information was the victim or hearsay from an unidentified third-party with whom the victim had spoken and whose reliability could not be tested … . In contrast, the victim denied that defendant had been drinking at the time of the second incident and indicated that defendant “normally doesn’t drink.” In his interview with probation, defendant denied “current alcohol or substance use and . . . any current or past treatment for such.” We conclude that there is no indication in the record that defendant abused alcohol by drinking in excess, that defendant became intoxicated, or that alcohol affected his behavior during the incident … . Nor is it “clear from the record what time the drinking occurred, how much [defendant] had to drink, and how much time passed before he abused [the] victim” … . The People thus failed to establish that defendant abused alcohol at the time of the offensive conduct, and the court erred in assessing 15 points under risk factor 11. People v Crane, 2025 NY Slip Op 01530,Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Here the evidence that defendant had used alcohol to excess at the time of the crime was weak and conflicting, rendering it insufficient to support the 15 points assessed on that ground.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD AN ARREST WARRANT, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE PROVED THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE PAROLE ABSCONDER WHEN THEY APPROACHED HIM, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE PURSUIT OF THE DEFENDANT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS WHO FIRST APPROACHED DEFENDANT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARREST WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police reasonably (but erroneously) believed defendant was the parole absconder for whom they had an arrest warrant. The pursuit and arrest, based in part on observing the defendant discard an handgun, were deemed proper:

… [T]here is no dispute that the apprehension team had probable cause to arrest the parole absconder inasmuch as an arrest warrant had been issued. As for the second element, “[t]he reasonableness of the arresting officers’ conduct must be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest”… , and “great deference should be given to the determination of the suppression court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to assess their credibility, and its factual findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous” … . Even though “[f]light alone . . . is insufficient to justify [a] pursuit” … , we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances present here the arresting officer’s testimony establishes that he reasonably believed that defendant was the absconder when he initiated his pursuit. Defendant closely matched the height and weight provided in the parole absconder’s description, covered his face with a ski mask, was in the location provided by the absconder’s girlfriend, and immediately fled upon being approached by one of the apprehension team’s unmarked vehicles. Inasmuch as the initial pursuit and subsequent arrest of defendant—which occurred after he was observed holding and then discarding a handgun—were lawful, the court did not err in refusing to suppress the physical evidence recovered during the post-arrest search of defendant and the surrounding area … .

From the dissent:

In our view, however, it does not appear that the pursuing officers had even a subjectively reasonable belief that defendant was the parolee for whom they had an arrest warrant. Indeed, the People, who are “put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance” … , failed to adduce anything other than that defendant matched the generic height and weight of the average male in the general population. Notably, the People failed to call the approaching officers, and thus adduced no testimony with respect to their actions, observations, or whether they believed—reasonably or not—that defendant was the parole absconder, particularly in the absence of any evidence that they chased defendant when he fled.

The officers who did testify at the suppression hearing—the pursuing officers—testified simply that defendant roughly matched the height and weight of the parolee and that he fled. As set forth above, the pursuing officers did not testify that the approaching officers gave chase when defendant fled. Coupled with the pursuing officer’s testimony that at the point when defendant fled, he was “free to leave,” the record at the suppression hearing undercuts any possible claim that the pursuing officers were not simply chasing a man who fled, but that they actually believed defendant to be the parolee for whom they had an arrest warrant. People v Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 01524, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the validity of an arrest of the “wrong person,” i.e., the approach, pursuit and arrest of one person based upon an arrest warrant for issued for another.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH TWO DIFFERENT RESIDENCES; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENCES, I.E., THERE WERE NO DETAILS DESCRIBING THE NARCOTICS THE INFORMANT OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE AND NO INDICATION WHEN THE OBSERVATON WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the hearsay allegations in the search warrant application were sufficient to provide probable cause to search two different residences. The two dissenting justices agued that the search warrant application focused on one residence and barely mentioned the other:

From the dissent:

Here, the warrant application in question concerned two addresses, i.e., 205 Curtis Street and 215 Curtis Street, but contained a mere two statements based on the confidential informant’s claimed knowledge regarding 205 Curtis Street. Specifically, it stated that “[t]he [confidential informant] has been inside 205 Curtis St[reet] on multiple occasions and is aware that narcotics are kept inside the location,” and that “[t]he [confidential informant] . . . has been to 205 and 215 Curtis Street multiple times for narcotics transactions.” The remaining contents of the six-page, single-spaced warrant application focused on 215 Curtis Street.

… [W]e agree with defendant that the hearsay information regarding 205 Curtis Street does not provide the requisite basis of knowledge justifying the issuance of the search warrant for that address … . First, we note that the application neither details any transaction that occurred at 205 Curtis Street, nor specifies the type of narcotic exchanged during such transaction. Second, no time frame is provided for the hearsay statements concerning 205 Curtis Street, and it is therefore entirely possible that the unspecified drug transaction occurred years or decades ago. In fact, the warrant application entirely fails to set forth what was actually observed by the informant at 205 Curtis Street or when it was observed … . On this record, we conclude that there is no basis provided to support the informant’s claimed awareness of narcotics at 205 Curtis Street. People v Berry, 2025 NY Slip Op 01523, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: According to the dissent, the bare allegation the informant observed narcotics in a residence, without any detail and without any time frame, did not provide probable cause for the search of that residence.

 

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