You are here: / Evidence
,

Even If Initial Frisk of Defendant Was Unlawful, the Defendant’s Pushing the Officer and Running Away Justified the Defendant’s Arrest (for Harassment of the Officer) and Seizure of Drugs

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.  Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police.  A police officer told defendant to get out of the vehicle and proceeded to frisk him.  The defendant then pushed the officer and ran away.  He was captured and drugs were subsequently found.  The Fourth Department determined that, even if the frisk was unlawful, the defendant’s pushing the officer and running away were not precipitated by the frisk:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the frisk was unlawful, we conclude that defendant’s act of pushing the frisking officer was not “spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality . . . [but] was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … . We therefore conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest for harassment of the frisking officer … . Consequently, the drugs seized from defendant’s person and the backseat of the patrol car were discovered incident to a lawful arrest … . People v Fox, 2015 NY Slip Op 00034, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction Under an “Acting in Concert” or “Accomplice” Theory Reversed

Using its “interests of justice” jurisdiction over an unpreserved error, the Fourth Department determined the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction under an “acting in concert” or “accomplice” theory.  There was insufficient evidence the defendant shared the intent to sell heroin:

“To establish an acting-in-concert theory in the context of a drug sale, the People must prove not only that the defendant shared the requisite mens rea for the underlying crime but also that defendant, in furtherance of the crime, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime . . . The key to our analysis is whether a defendant intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise–—the illegal sale of a narcotic drug” … .

We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant acted in concert with the codefendant to sell heroin to the buyer inasmuch as he did nothing “more than simply direct the [buyer] to a location where [she] could purchase [heroin]” … . “While this evidence certainly demonstrated that the defendant was able to identify a local purveyor of narcotics, it did not show . . . that he shared the seller’s intent to bring the transaction about . . . [Indeed], by merely responding to the [buyer’s] inquiry as to who had drugs for sale, the defendant did nothing to solicit or request, much less demand[,] importune[, or assist in] the illicit sale” … . We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment. People v Davila, 2015 NY Slip Op 00016, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

In reversing Family Court in a custody proceeding and sending the matter back for complete forensic evaluations of the parties and a de novo hearing, as well as ordering the appointment of a new attorney for the child, the Second Department noted several significant evidentiary errors, including inadmissible hearsay, a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the failure to order forensic evaluations of the parties:

Before a hearing on the petitions was held, the attorney for the subject child, based on the out-of-court statements of the day care provider, made an application for the father to be awarded temporary custody of the subject child. The Family Court granted that application. Such an award was improper, as it was based on the disputed hearsay allegations … .

During the hearing on the petitions, the Family Court erred in permitting the father to testify that the subject child told him that the mother's other daughter “did it.” The father's testimony was intended to show that the mother's other daughter might have sexually abused the subject child. The statement was inadmissible hearsay, and did not qualify as either prompt outcry evidence, or as a spontaneous declaration… . * * *

The Family Court also erred in overruling the mother's objection to the testimony of her other daughter's treating physician about his treatment of that child on the ground that the Privacy Rule standard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (hereinafter HIPAA) for disclosure of her other daughter's medical information was not met (see 45 CFR 164.512[e][1][i], [ii]). The mother's other daughter was not a party to the proceeding, and permitting her treating physician to testify in violation of HIPAA directly impaired the interest protected by the HIPAA Privacy Rule of keeping one's own medical records private. As such, the Family Court should have sustained the mother's objection to this testimony … . * * *

The Family Court erred in failing to order forensic evaluations of the parties, their living environments, and the subject child prior to issuing a decision on the petitions. “In custody disputes, the value of forensic evaluations of the parents and children has long been recognized” … . “Although forensic evaluations are not always necessary, such evaluations may be appropriate where there exist sharp factual disputes that affect the final determination” … . Here, in the absence of such evaluations, the record in this case is inadequate to support the court's finding that it was in the best interest of the subject child for the father to be awarded sole custody of her… .

Moreover, “[an attorney for the child] should not have a particular position or decision in mind at the outset of the case before the gathering of evidence” … . It is only appropriate for an attorney for a child to form an opinion as to what would be in the child's best interest, after such inquiry … . Here, it was inappropriate for the attorney for the subject child to have advocated for a temporary change in custody without having conducted a complete investigation. The attorney for the subject child acknowledged that his application was based solely on his discussion with the father and the subject child's day care provider, which was located near the father's residence, and that he did not speak to the mother or the subject child's other day care provider closer to the mother's residence. Matter of Brown v Simon, 2014 NY Slip Op 09127, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


, , , , ,

Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action

In an action stemming from the collapse of a retaining wall between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties, the First Department noted that a survey map without an affidavit from the surveyor is insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, but was sufficient to support the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court also noted that where negligence and nuisance causes of action are duplicative, the nuisance action should be dismissed:

… [A] survey alone, without an accompanying affidavit from the surveyor, does not constitute competent evidence of the location of property lines and fences or retaining walls … . Plaintiff has therefore failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to a declaratory judgment on its claim brought pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-305.1.1.

Defendant met its prima facie burden as cross movant by submission of the affidavit of a land surveyor who inspected and measured the property subsequent to the collapse of the retaining wall in June 2013, and concluded that no portion of the wall had been upon defendant’s property. That plaintiff’s two surveys indicate that the wall was “on [the] line” of both properties, is sufficient, however, to raise a question as to the location of the wall relative to the two properties; we have long held that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be considered to defeat an application for summary judgment … .

… [W]e find that the claim of negligence is expressed throughout plaintiff’s papers, and there is a question of fact as to whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, if the retaining wall is found to rest on both parties’ premises. The claim of nuisance, based on allegations that defendant’s ongoing refusal to participate in the repairs and maintenance of the retaining wall substantially interferes with plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy its property, arises solely from plaintiff’s claim of negligence. Where nuisance and negligence elements are “so intertwined as to be practically inseparable,” a plaintiff may recover only once for the harm suffered … . Upon a search of the record, we conclude that the third cause of action, nuisance, should be dismissed as duplicative of the negligence cause of action, although this argument was not previously made or considered … . 70 Pinehurst Avenue LLC v RPN Mgt Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09029, 1st Dept 12-30-14

 

,

Testimony Insufficient to Overcome Presumption Photo Arrays, Which Were Not Preserved, Were Unduly Suggestive—Subsequent Line-Up, Which Included Persons Much Older than Defendant, Was Unduly Suggestive—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined both identification procedures were unduly suggestive and ordered a new trial.  The People did not preserve the photo arrays and the testimony about the photo arrays was insufficient to overcome the presumption the arrays were suggestive.  The subsequent line-up included persons much older that the 18-year-old defendant and, therefore, was unduly suggestive:

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The People's failure to preserve the original photographic arrays viewed by the complainants gave rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, and the People did not present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption … . The fact that the police failed to preserve the arrays viewed by the complainants does not warrant suppression in and of itself. However, the detective's testimony at the suppression hearing as to how the computerized procedure operated was insufficiently detailed to establish its fairness … . The detective gave inconsistent testimony regarding what age criteria he entered in the computer system to generate each photo array. Furthermore, he did not recall how many screens either complainant viewed before each of them recognized the defendant, or how long it took each to make an identification. Therefore, the evidence did not overcome the presumption that the arrays were suggestive … . Although the police had not yet focused on any particular suspect, it cannot be said that the sheer volume of photographs viewed was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness, as it is unknown how many photographs were viewed by the complainants … .

We need not address whether the subsequent lineup was sufficiently attenuated in time from the photo identification procedure to nullify any possible taint, because the lineup procedure was also unduly suggestive … . While there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance, the other individuals in the lineup should sufficiently resemble the defendant so that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification … . Upon our review of a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainants, it is apparent that the defendant and one of the fillers appear to be of similar ages, but the other three fillers appear visibly older than the defendant … . The age disparity was sufficiently apparent as to orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the crimes charged … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 09024, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Evidence of General Cleaning Practices Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice

The Second Department noted that the absence of construction notice of a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case cannot be demonstrated by evidence of general cleaning procedures, as opposed to specific evidence when the area in question was inspected and cleaned:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . With respect to the issue of constructive notice, to meet its initial burden, “the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell.” “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Sesina v Joy Lea Realty LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08976, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

,

Although Plaintiff Could Not Identify the Cause of Her Fall, A Question of Fact Was Raised Re: the Cause by Circumstantial Evidence

The Second Department determined that, although the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall, she was able to raise a question of fact about the cause from circumstantial evidence:

In a trip-and-fall case, 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 … . However, that a defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of an accident can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury … .

Here, the defendants met their burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident without engaging in speculation … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, through circumstantial evidence, as to whether the cause of her fall was a cracked and/or unlevel condition on the defendants’ driveway … . Buglione v Spagnoletti, 2014 NY Slip Op 08801, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, , ,

Out-of-Court Statement Leading to Discovery of the Weapon Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation Because There Was No “Direct Implication” the Statement Involved the Defendant’s Possession of the Weapon

The Second Department determined that the right of confrontation issue was preserved for appeal because, although not raised directly, the issue was specifically determined by Supreme Court.  The court further determined that the testimony which alluded to an out-of-court statement leading to the discovery of a blood-covered knife did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th amend) issue is preserved for appellate review. While the issue was not “plainly present[ed]” to the Supreme Court …, the court’s ruling on the defendant’s objection demonstrates that the court specifically considered and resolved this issue … .

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” … . Here, however, Sergeant Tribble’s testimony and the subsequent testimony relating to the discovery of the weapon did not violate the Confrontation Clause, since there was no direct implication that the nontestifying witness told the police that the defendant possessed the knife, disposed of it, or tried to conceal it … . People v Richberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08863, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that a switch-blade found in a pat-down search of the defendant after a vehicle stop should have been suppressed. The way the defendant was driving and the officer’s observations of defendant after the stop provided probable cause for a DWI arrest.  However, at the suppression hearing, the arresting officer (Merino) testified that he was not going to arrest the defendant prior to the pat-down search and only arrested him because the knife was found.  The Court of Appeals held that the search, therefore, could not be a “search incident to arrest” and could not be otherwise justified:

It is not disputed that, before conducting the search, Merino could lawfully have arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated. And it is clear that the search was not unlawful solely because it preceded the arrest, since the two events were substantially contemporaneous (see Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98, 111 [1980] [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search . . ., we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa”]; People Evans, 43 NY2d 160, 166 [1977] [“The fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event”]). Nor is it decisive that the police chose to predicate the arrest on the possession of a weapon, rather than on driving while intoxicated (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US 146 [2004]). The problem is that, as Merino testified, but for the search there would have been no arrest at all.

Where that is true, to say that the search was incident to the arrest does not make sense. It is irrelevant that, because probable cause existed, there could have been an arrest without a search. A search must be incident to an actual arrest, not just to probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not … . People v Reid, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759, CtApp 12-16-14

 

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