You are here: / Evidence
,

People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor failed to show good cause for her failure to provide timely notice of rebuttal witnesses.  Defendant had provided a “notice of alibi.”  Defendant’s alibi witness was his girlfriend, who testified defendant was home with her at the time of the offense.  The prosecutor did not provide reciprocal notice of rebuttal witnesses who would testify that cell phone records demonstrated defendant was not at home with his girlfriend at the time of the offense.  In spite of the lack of timely notice, the trial court allowed the rebuttal testimony after an adjournment:

CPL 250.20(1) provides, among other things, that within eight days of service of a demand by the People, a defendant “must” serve upon the People a “notice of alibi,” and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service of the notice.” The reciprocal provision, CPL 250.20(2), provides, among other things, that “[w]ithin a reasonable time after receipt of the defendant’s witness list but not later than ten days before trial,” the People “must” serve and file a list of the witnesses the People propose to offer in rebuttal to discredit the defendant’s alibi at the trial, and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service” of the People’s witness list.

CPL 250.20(3) provides that if the defendant calls an alibi witness at trial without having first served the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(1), the court “may exclude any testimony of such witness,” or “may in its discretion receive such testimony, but before doing so, it must, upon application” of the People, “grant an adjournment not in excess of three days” (CPL 250.20[3]). CPL 250.20(4) provides that the provisions of subdivision (3) “shall reciprocally apply” when the People seek to offer alibi rebuttal witnesses without having given the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(2).

Here, the People contend, in effect, that, unlike CPL 250.20(2), which requires the People to show “good cause” for an extension of time to serve the list of alibi rebuttal witnesses, CPL 250.20(3) and (4) do not require such a showing for the court to exercise its discretion in receiving such testimony absent any compliance with the notice requirement. We disagree … . A construction of the statute which requires good cause to be shown before trial, but not during trial, when late notice would be most prejudicial, is both contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, as well as contrary to the intent of the Legislature in amending the statute to comply with the Due Process Clause … . To hold otherwise would mean that CPL 250.20(3) and (4) completely eviscerate the timeliness of notice requirements of CPL 250.20(1) and (2). People v Crevelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01661, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

ess Required Reversal

,

Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff testified he did not know what caused him to fall.  The testimony of a witness about tree roots in the area of the fall did not establish that plaintiff tripped on the roots:

“Ordinarily, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing that it did not create the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “However, a defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation” … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through the submission of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The affidavit of Angelo Mamone, who was walking alongside the plaintiff when he fell, did not raise a triable issue of fact, since Mamone did not aver that he observed the plaintiff trip, but only observed that there were tree roots in the path where the plaintiff fell. His conclusion that tree roots were the cause of the fall was speculative. Moreover, the portion of a police report relied upon by the plaintiff contained inadmissible hearsay and, thus, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Goldberg v Village of Mount Kisco, 205 NY Slip Op 01608, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Proof of the Cause of Plaintiff’s Slip and Fall Need Not Be Based Upon Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge

Although proof the cause of a slip and fall cannot be based on speculation, the Second Department noted the proof of the cause need not be based upon plaintiff’s personal knowledge:

A defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall … . If a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall, any finding of negligence would be based upon speculation … . “That does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall. Rather, it means only that a plaintiff’s inability to establish the cause of his or [her] fall—whether by personal knowledge or by other admissible proof—is fatal to a cause of action based on negligence” … .  Pol v Gjonbalaj, 2015 NY Slip Op 01625, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

“To a Reasonable Degree of Medical Probability” Properly States the Standard for Expert Opinion on Proximate Cause

The Second Department noted that it was sufficient that the expert stated there was “a reasonable degree of medical probability” plaintiff’s injury was caused by the accident:

The usual language is “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” but the phrase “degree of medical certainty” has been deemed sufficient (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459). In Matott, the Court of Appeals held that the relevant inquiry is “whether it is reasonably apparent’ that the doctor intends to signify a probability supported by some rational basis'” (id. at 461 …). Here, the phrase “reasonable degree of medical probability” satisfied that standard. It should also be noted that that language is the statutory standard in New Jersey for determining if there is sufficient evidence of serious injury to sue for noneconomic loss (NJ Stat § 39:6A-8[a]…). Further, [the expert] explained the foundation for his opinion, noting that the plaintiff initially appeared at an early stage of his condition immediately after the accident, and that his condition progressed thereafter … . Thus, his opinion was supported by a rational basis … . Kahvejian v Pardo, 2015 NY Slip Op 01612, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Insufficient Foundation for Introduction of Grand Jury Testimony as Past Recollection Recorded—No Showing Recollection Was “Fairly Fresh” and Accurate at the Time of the Grand Jury Appearance

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias (disagreeing at length with the rationale of the concurring opinion), reversed defendant’s perjury conviction because a witness’ (Woods’) grand jury testimony was wrongly admitted under the past recollection recorded hearsay exception.  Woods testified and remained available to testify when the hearsay exception was invoked.  Woods claimed that he did not know whether he had actual knowledge of past events or whether his memory stemmed from the many “prep” discussions he had had with the prosecutor over a six-year period. There was a six-year gap between the underlying events and Woods’ grand jury appearance. The First Department determined the prosecutor did not lay a sufficient foundation for admission of the grand jury testimony in that it was not shown that Woods’ recollection was “fairly fresh” at the time of the grand jury testimony:

Although there is no rigid rule as to how soon after the event the statement must have been made …, here the assurance of the accuracy of the recordation and its trustworthiness are diminished by the six- year gap between the underlying events, which concluded in 2000, and Woods’s grand jury testimony in 2006 * * * .

The People argue that Woods’s testimony is admissible despite the six-year gap because the trial court found that he was “feigning a lack of memory.” However, even if Woods’s lack of memory demonstrates that he was unable or unwilling to testify, it does not abrogate the People’s obligation to satisfy the foundational requirement that the recollection was fairly fresh when [*5]recorded or adopted.

Nor was Woods able to “presently testify that the record correctly represented his knowledge and recollection when made” … . Although Woods testified that he believed his grand jury testimony was truthful and accurate, he also testified that “[a]s I sit here right now, I can’t tell you if everything that’s in that Grand Jury that I said was … accurate”; that although he “wanted to be accurate” and “wouldn’t testify untruthfully,” he could not swear that “what’s in the … Grand Jury … was exactly what happened,” and that he could not “remember [if] … what I was talking to was my clear recollection or … was resulting from [my prep sessions] with people.” Thus, Woods’s testimony reflects that although he would not have purposefully lied to the grand jury, he could not presently state that his testimony accurately reflected his own recollection of the events in question at the time that he testified before it … . People V DiTommaso, 2015 NY Slip Op 01592, 1st Dept 2-14-15

 

,

Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”

The Court of Appeals determined that the “depraved indifference” standard in the first degree reckless endangerment statute was not met by the facts.  Defendant had (consensual) unprotected sex with his partner after the defendant was diagnosed as HIV positive.  The defendant’s partner was subsequently diagnosed as HIV positive:

Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which means the same thing in the murder and reckless endangerment statutes … . As we explained in People v Suarez (6 NY3d 202, 212 [2005]), “[a] defendant may be convicted of [a depraved indifference crime] when but a single person is endangered in only a few rare circumstances”; specifically, where the defendant exhibits “wanton cruelty, brutality or callousness directed against a particularly vulnerable victim, combined with utter indifference to the life or safety of the helpless target of the perpetrator’s inexcusable acts” (id. at 213). Here, there is no evidence that defendant exposed the victim to the risk of HIV infection out of any malevolent desire for the victim to contract the virus, or that he was utterly indifferent to the victim’s fate .. . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 01485, CtApp 2-19-15

 

,

Bare Allegation in an Attorney Affidavit that, Upon Information and Belief, the Deputies Lacked Probable Cause to Arrest Defendant, Not Enough to Justify a Hearing on a Suppression Motion

In finding defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied without a hearing, the Third Department explained what is required to warrant a hearing:

“A motion seeking suppression of evidence ‘must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact . . . supporting such grounds'” … . A hearing in this regard is neither “automatic [n]or generally available [simply] for the asking” … and, except in circumstances not present here (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; 710.20 [3], [6]), the trial court “may summarily deny the motion if the papers do not allege a legal basis for suppression or if the factual allegations do not as a matter of law support any alleged ground” … . Here, in support of her suppression motion, defendant tendered the affidavit of her attorney, who merely asserted — upon information and belief — that the deputies in question lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. This “bare allegation of a lack of probable cause, without any factual support, was insufficient to require a hearing” … . People v Briskin, 2015 NY Slip Op 01493, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

,

Appellant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction—Questions of Fact Whether Witness Testimony Was Induced by Threats and/or Promises Not Disclosed to the Defense at Trial

The Third Department determined appellant, who had been convicted of second degree murder, was entitled to a hearing re: a potential Brady violation.  Appellant was an inmate at the time of the incident and the witnesses to the incident were other inmates Appellant, in a motion to vacate the conviction, presented affidavits from witnesses to the incident who averred they were threatened or offered promises by prison personnel in exchange for their testimony.  The court noted there was a question of fact whether the prosecution could be held responsible for the actions of prison personnel (relevant information may have been outside the control of the prosecution):

…[D]efendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Due process requires that the People disclose to the defendant any evidence in their possession that is “material to guilt or punishment” … . The People must disclose evidence relating to a witness’s credibility, including “the ‘existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the witness'” … . “To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . When a specific request has been made for the evidence that was withheld, “the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … . People v Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 01492, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

,

Relatively Low Degree of Corroboration Required to Admit Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Re: Abuse or Neglect

The Third Department, in a custody proceeding, explained the level of corroboration required to render a child’s out-of-court statements admissible:

Both the mother and the attorney for the children contend that the testimony of the father’s psychiatrist … concerning the older child’s out-of-court statements are inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. A child’s out-of-court statements are admissible in a custody dispute if the statements relate to abuse or neglect, provided that such statements are corroborated by other evidence … . “The degree of corroboration required is relatively low” … , and the hearing court “is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether there is sufficient corroboration” … . Heather B v Daniel B, 2015 NY Slip Op 01506, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

, ,

Maltreatment Finding Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

The Third Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Office of Children and Family Services finding of maltreatment.  Petitioner spanked the child for eating soap while petitioner was bathing the child.  Petitioner explained what had happened to the child’s day-care provider, who then reported the incident to the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment:

“‘At an administrative hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence'” … . Specifically, “‘[t]o establish that maltreatment occurred, the agency must show that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care'” … . In our consideration of the underlying determination, “our focus is whether the determination is rational and supported by substantial evidence” … . * * *

A parent is “entitled to use reasonable physical force to promote discipline” … , however, the application of such force may not “exceed[] the threshold of reasonableness” … . Although a single instance of excessive corporal punishment can suffice for a finding of maltreatment …, here, the record lacks substantial evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s conduct “impaired or was in imminent danger of impairing [the child’s] physical, mental or emotional condition” … . Matter of Maurizio XX v New Y\ork State Off of Children and Family Services, 2015 NY Slip Op 01512, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

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