You are here: / Evidence
,

Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police

The Second Department determined the complainant’s in-court and pre-trial identification of the defendant should have been suppressed. After the complainant identified the defendant in the show-up, the complainant told the police all the burglars were wearing masks.  The error, however, was deemed harmless.  Probable cause to arrest the defendant existed prior to the show-up:

Here, the hearing testimony demonstrated not only that the perpetrators’ faces were covered during the entire time the complainant was with them, but also that the only description the complainant had previously provided to the police was that the perpetrators were black males. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant’s pretrial and in-court identification of the defendant was not founded on the fact that the defendant was the only person standing in the street, in handcuffs, surrounded by the police with high-beam headlights shining on his face, during the showup proceeding … . Nevertheless, the error in admitting this identification evidence at trial was harmless since the other evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including oral and written statements he gave to the police admitting to his participation in the burglary, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to his conviction … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 03390, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

,

Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were Timely and Properly Mailed—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Should Not Have Been Granted

Supreme Court granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment, declaring that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay no-fault claims submitted by the defendant because the defendant was unable to verify the validity of the claims. The Second Department reversed, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the denials had been timely and properly mailed to the defendant. The relevant proof requirements were described:

Generally, “proof that an item was properly mailed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the item was received by the addressee” … . ” The presumption may be created by either proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed'” … . However, in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a denial of claim is always properly addressed and mailed … . “Denial of receipt by the insured[ ], standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that they timely and properly mailed the denial of claim forms to the defendant. The affidavit of Joseph M. Andre … asserted that … all items were mailed through an automated system, and explained how documents were identified. However, Andre did not state, in his affidavit, how the envelopes were addressed so as to ensure that the address was correct or whether the envelope was addressed by the automated system or by an employee. He also did not state how and when the envelopes, once sealed, weighed, and affixed with postage using the automated system, were transferred to the care and custody of the United States Postal Service or some other carrier or messenger service to be delivered. Therefore, Andre’s affidavit was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed to the defendant… . Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03340, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, ,

Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”

Although the admission of hearsay was deemed harmless error, the First Department determined that allowing the hearsay in evidence to “complete the narrative” or to “eliminate jury confusion” was improper.  The hearsay identified defendant as one of the assailants by indicating the defendant’s name was one of the names mentioned in a phone call about the underlying assault.  The court noted that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the hearsay was not “testimonial,”  citing People v Gantt, 48 AD3d 59:

…[T]he hearsay nature of [the] testimony relating [an] out-of-court statement … identifying defendant as [an] assailant — either by name or by an identifying description …— was not remedied by framing the query posed … as seeking the “name mentioned …” during the call.

We do not adopt the trial court’s reasoning that the admission of this hearsay evidence was necessary to convey a coherent narrative of the relevant events or to eliminate the possibility of jury confusion … .  People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03270, 1st Dept 4-21-15

 

,

Attesting Witnesses Did Not See Decedent’s Signature on the Will and One Attesting Witness Did Not Know the Document Was a Will—The Will Was Not Duly Executed and the Petition for Probate Was Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined the petition seeking probate of a will was properly dismissed because the attesting witnesses did not know whether the decedent had signed the will.  One attesting witness was approached by decedent in the hallway of the assisted living facility where the witness worked and saw only the page of the document which he signed.  Another attesting witness, also approached in the hallway by the decedent, was not aware she was signing a will and did not see decedent’s signature on the document. The court explained that an attestation clause, standing alone, will not demonstrate due execution of a will. “…[T]he testator must acknowledge his or her signature to the witnesses. The testator must also declare to each witness that the document is the testator’s will (see EPTL 3-2.1 [a]).” Here, two of the three attesting witnesses did not sign the will in conformity with the statutory requirements:

To be duly executed, a will must be subscribed by the testator in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, or the testator must acknowledge his or her signature to the witnesses. The testator must also declare to each witness that the document is the testator’s will (see EPTL 3-2.1 [a]). Here, the subject will contains an attestation clause. However, Surrogate’s Court must nonetheless examine the attendant circumstances to determine the validity of the will, and it is well established that the attestation clause standing alone will not suffice to meet the proponent’s burden of demonstrating due execution by a preponderance of the evidence if affirmative proof reveals that the required elements were lacking … . In this analysis, “the testimony of the attesting witnesses is entitled to great weight” … . Matter of Yen, 2015 NY Slip Op 03228, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

,

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

 

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