You are here: / Evidence
,

CONTRACT LAW/EVIDENCE Parol Evidence (Email) Properly Admitted to Explain Ambiguous Term in Construction Contract with a Merger Clause—Relevant Law Succinctly Explained

The Second Department determined parol evidence was properly admitted to explain the meaning of an ambiguous phrase in a construction contract with a merger clause.  The court succinctly explained the relevant law:

A written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced to give effect to the meaning of its terms and the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the court should determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the contract without looking to extrinsic evidence to create ambiguities … . A contract is considered to be clear and unambiguous where the language used has “a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion” … . Moreover, the parol evidence rule operates to preclude evidence of a prior or contemporaneous communication during negotiations of the agreement that contradicts, varies, or explains a written agreement which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and expresses the parties’ entire agreement and intentions … . Where a contract contains a merger clause, a court is obliged to require full application of the parol evidence rule in order to bar the introduction of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of the writing … .

Here … parol evidence was properly admitted into evidence to explain the ambiguous phrase “cost to Owner” in the change order provision of the construction contract, inasmuch as the term “cost” was not defined, and could have various meanings, including one limited to labor and material costs without an additional markup. Accordingly, parol evidence, such as the email … stating that change orders would not include markups, which does not otherwise vary or contradict the construction contract, was permitted… . Vivir of L I, Inc. v Ehrenkranz, 2015 NY Slip Op 03152, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

,

The Facts that a Witness Had Given a Statement to the Police and Was on the People’s Witness List Did Not Demonstrate the People Had Control Over the Witness—Request for Missing Witness Charge Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge for the defendant’s roommate, who had witnessed the shooting and had given a statement to the police during the initial investigation.  The facts that the roommate had given a statement and was placed on the People’s witness list did not demonstrate control over the witness. Without evidence of such control (for example, a material witness order) a missing witness charge is not appropriate:

…[T]he roommate was not under the People’s control at the time of trial by virtue of having provided a statement to the police during the initial investigation stage of the case. In addition, control cannot be found from the People’s placement of the roommate on their witness list, as their wish for his testimony is not indicia of having control over him. There was no material witness order. Indeed, the record contains no evidence that the People’s relationship with the defendant’s roommate gave them any more control over him at trial than the defendant may have had himself.  People v Roseboro, 2015 NY Slip Op 03192, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

,

Hearsay, Although Admissible, Will Not Alone Raise a Triable Issue of Fact/A “Contractor” (Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)) Need Only Have the Authority to Control the Work—It Need Not Actually Exercise that Authority

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff for his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. A one-ton concrete plank fell from a jack onto plaintiff’s hand.  The court noted that the hearsay submitted by the defendant, claiming that plaintiff was injured when he continued to work after being ordered to stop, was not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.  Hearsay is admissible in this context but hearsay alone will not suffice to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also found that the defendant was a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1).  To meet the definition, the contractor must have the authority to enforce safety measures and hire responsible subcontractors, but need not have exercised that authority:

“Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, such evidence alone is not sufficient to defeat the motion” … .

… “A party which has the authority to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors is considered a contractor under Labor Law § 240(1)” … . [Defendant’s] status as a contractor under Labor Law § 240(1) is dependent upon whether it had the authority to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right … . Guanopatin v Flushing Acquisition Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02933, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

,

Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that state evidentiary rules were violated by testimony, during the People’s case-in-chief, describing the defendant’s silence following some of the questions asked by the police during interrogation. The court noted that although there are (very) limited circumstances when a defendant’s silence, or failure to give a timely exculpatory explanation, can be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand, no such flexibility applies to the case-in-chief.  There can be many reasons for a defendant’s silence in response to a question, so the probative value of silence is limited.  On the other hand, there is a real danger a jury will interpret a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The error was not harmless as a matter of law–defendant’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered:

If silence could constitute an answer, then the People could meet their burden simply by asking a question. Moreover, evidence of a defendant’s selective silence “is of extremely limited probative worth” … . A defendant who agrees to speak to the police but refuses to answer certain questions may have the same legitimate or innocent reasons for refusing to answer as a defendant who refuses to speak to the police at all … . Furthermore, the potential risk of prejudice from evidence of a defendant’s selective silence is even greater than the risk to a defendant who chooses to remain totally silent. Jurors are more likely to construe a defendant’s refusal to answer certain questions as an admission of guilt if the defendant has otherwise willingly answered other police inquiries. The ambiguous nature and limited probative worth of a defendant’s selective silence is outweighed by the substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant from admission of such evidence … . Evidence of a defendant’s selective silence therefore generally may not be used by the People during their case-in-chief and may be used only as “a device for impeachment” of a defendant’s trial testimony in limited and unusual circumstances … .

The People’s use of defendant’s selective silence in this case was improper for another reason. In her opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that defendant did not admit or deny the accusations when he spoke to the detective. Furthermore, during direct examination of the detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony establishing not only that defendant did not answer when asked whether he had sex with the victim, but also that he did not deny it either. In addition to using defendant’s selective silence as a purported impeachment device during their direct case, the People also invited the jury to infer an admission of guilt from defendant’s failure to deny the accusations. The risk that the jury made such an impermissible inference is substantial where, as here, defendant selectively answered some police questions but not others, and the court refused to provide any curative instruction. The prosecutor’s comments regarding defendant’s selective silence during opening statements were improper, and the court erred in allowing testimony concerning defendant’s selective silence at trial, inasmuch as the comments and testimony allowed the jury to “draw an unwarranted inference of guilt” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 4-7-15

 

, ,

Defendant Cannot Be Convicted of Both Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder Where there Is a Single Victim/”Transferred Intent” Theory Explained and Applied/Insufficient Evidence Defendant Intimidated a Witness—the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony Should Not Have Been Admitted

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a partial dissent, resolved a split among the departments and determined a defendant cannot be convicted of both intentional murder and depraved indifference murder where there is a single victim. It was alleged that the defendant fired his weapon at one person, but killed an uninvolved bystander who was several buildings away. The trial judge submitted both the intentional and depraved indifference murder theories to the jury in the conjunctive (not in the alternative). Defendant was convicted of both offenses. The Court of Appeals’ analysis turned on “transferred intent.”  Conviction under New York’s “transferred intent” theory requires the jury to conclude the defendant acted intentionally.  Intentional murder, even where “transferred intent” is involved, is incompatible with depraved indifference murder, which is, by definition, not intentional. Where there is a single victim, only one or the other mental state can apply, not both. The Court of Appeals further determined the trial court erred when it allowed in evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who refused to testify, purportedly out of fear. There was not sufficient evidence connecting the defendant to any actions or words aimed at instilling fear in the witness.  A new trial was ordered for the intentional, depraved indifference and attempted murder counts:

The purpose of the transferred intent theory is “to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime [that person] intended to commit even when, because of bad aim or some other ‘lucky mistake,’ the intended target was not the actual victim” … . Given this stated goal, the Court has cautioned that transferred intent “should not be employed to ‘multiply criminal liability, but to prevent a defendant who has committed all the elements of a crime (albeit not upon the same victim) from escaping responsibility for that crime” … . Hence, it should be applied where a defendant “could not be convicted of the crime because the mental and physical elements do not concur as to either the intended or actual victim” … .

… Whether based on the defendant’s conscious objective towards the intended victim, or on a transferred intent theory directed at a different, and actual, victim, defendant’s conviction depends on a jury finding that defendant harbored the requisite intentional mental state. Defendant cannot then also be guilty of the same murder premised on a depraved state of mind.

That the People had at their disposal two bases by which to establish the requisite state of mind — transferred intent and depraved indifference — does not permit the People to seek multiple convictions for the one murder for which the defendant was charged, prosecuted and tried. To hold otherwise is contrary to “the basic principle that a defendant should not be convicted and punished more than once for conduct which, although constituting only one prohibited act, may because of statutory definition, be theorized as constituting separate criminal acts” … . Under New York law, defendant is held accountable for the murder he committed, even if it was not the one he set out to complete (Penal Law 125.25 [1]). People v Dubarry, 2015 NY Slip Op 02865, CtApp 4-7-15

 

,

As Long as a Police Officer’s Mistake is “Objectively Reasonable,” a Stop Based Upon the Mistake Will Not Be Invalidated/There Is No Analytical Distinction Between a Mistake of Law and a Mistake of Fact in this Context

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a police officer’s objectively reasonable mistake about the law will not invalidate a stop based upon that mistake.  Here the defendant was stopped by the police after she rolled through a stop sign at the exit of a supermarket parking lot.  The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.  It turned out that the stop sign, although regulation size and color, was not registered with the town and was therefore not “legally authorized.” The local court dismissed the charges, finding the initial vehicle stop, based upon a mistake of law, improper. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the mistake of law was “objectively reasonable.”  The court noted that a police officer cannot be expected to know the location of every “unregistered” stop sign in his/her jurisdiction. The court made it clear, in deciding whether the actions taken by the police were objectively reasonable, there should be no distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law:

…[W]e look to the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, without drawing any distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. * * * … [W]e are not saying that it would have been objectively reasonable for the arresting officer to have claimed ignorance of the requirement in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1100 (b) that a stop sign in a parking lot be registered to be valid. We are saying that the stop was nonetheless constitutionally justified because the officer was not chargeable with knowing each and every stop sign that was registered under the Newark Village Code.  People v Guthrie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 4-7-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Properly Relied on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to Survive Summary Judgment

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  After shoulder surgery plaintiff experienced numbness and was unable to flex his index finger and thumb.  There was general agreement the injury was the result of specified nerve damage but either the anesthesia-procedure or the surgery could have caused it. The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s expert could not be deemed unqualified as to one of treating physicians simply because he was not a specialist in the same field as that treating physician:

“Ordinarily, a plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … . “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” … . Elements of res ipsa loquitur are: “[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Frank v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 02827, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

, , ,

Emails Can Suffice as “Documentary Evidence” to Support a Motion to Dismiss—Here the Documentary Evidence About Aspects of an Employment Agreement that Were In Contention Did Not Utterly Refute the Allegation that an Employment Contract Had Already Been Entered

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant, which dealt with several aspects of an employment agreement that were in contention, did not utterly refute plaintiff’s allegation that an employment contract had already been entered.  Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action was properly denied.  The opinion is long and detailed, as is the dissent, and cannot fairly be summarized here.  With respect to what constitutes documentary evidence in this context, the court wrote:

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), a court is obliged “to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true, according to plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determining only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Moreover, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . If the documentary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted even if the allegations, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *

Preliminarily, we reject Supreme Court’s conclusion that correspondence such as the emails here do not suffice as documentary evidence for purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1). This Court has consistently held otherwise. For example, in Schutty v Speiser Krause P.C. (86 AD3d 484, 484-485 [1st Dept 2011]), this Court found drafts of an agreement and correspondence sufficient for purposes of establishing a defense under the statute. Similarly, in Langer v Dadabhoy (44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]), this Court found “documentary evidence in the form of emails” to be sufficient to carry the day for a defendant on a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion. Likewise, in WFB Telecom. v NYNEX Corp. (188 AD2d 257, 259 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 709 [1993]), this Court granted a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion on the basis of a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel that contradicted the complaint. Therefore, there is no blanket rule by which email is to be excluded from consideration as documentary evidence under the statute. Kolchins v Evolution Mkts., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02863, 1st Dept 4-2-15

 

, ,

Defense Counsel Took a Position Adverse to the Defendant’s—Sentence Vacated

The Third Department determined the defendant’s sentence must be vacated because defense counsel took a position adverse to the defendant re: the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea:

“It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea”… . While defense counsel need not support a pro se motion to withdraw a plea, counsel may not become a witness against his or her client …, make remarks that “affirmatively undermine” a defendant’s arguments …, or otherwise “take a position that is adverse to the defendant” … . Here, when asked to respond to defendant’s pro se motion, counsel advised that, in his opinion, “[County] Court thoroughly explained everything to him . . ., [defendant had] no questions concerning the plea” and that there was no way that he could see that defendant “pleaded without knowing what he was pleading to.” In our view, because counsel’s opinion was adverse to defendant, a conflict of interest arose and County Court should have assigned a new attorney to represent defendant … . People v Prater,2015 NY Slip Op 02806, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Forcing Defendant to Go to Trial When His Expert on the Intoxication Defense Was Not Available Rendered Defendant’s Guilty Plea Involuntary and Coerced

The Third Department vacated defendant’s plea, finding that it was involuntary and coerced.  Defendant admitted shooting and killing his brother, but it was clear that defendant was highly intoxicated at the time of the offense.  County Court set the matter down for trial at a time the defendant’s expert on the intoxication defense was not available, after the court concluded there was no merit to the defense. During the plea colloquy the defendant answered “to the best of my recollection” when asked whether he had caused the death of his brother. Under these circumstances the waiver of appeal and the failure to preserve the error did not preclude review:

…[D]efendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal but is unpreserved for our review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea … . That said, we nonetheless are persuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered here, as defendant’s qualified response — “[t]o the best of my recollection” — to County Court’s key question during the course of the plea allocution cast doubt upon his guilt and/or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, thereby obligating County Court to undertake further inquiry prior to accepting defendant’s plea … — particularly in view of the transcripts of the 911 call, wherein defendant clearly indicated that he had been drinking on the day of the shooting, and defendant’s Town Court arraignment, wherein the Town Judge expressed concerns regarding defendant’s ability to understand the charges against him due to his apparent level of intoxication. We also find merit to defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced. As noted previously, defendant entered his plea of guilty in response to the prospect of proceeding to trial within a matter of days and without an expert witness, and such plea was entered on the heels of County Court’s questionable, pretrial analysis as to the viability of defendant’s asserted intoxication defense. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. People v Lang, 2015 NY Slip Op 02809, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

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