You are here: / Evidence
,

Request for Missing-Witness Jury Instruction Should Have Been Granted—Prosecutor’s Statement that the Witness Would Exercise His Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Not Enough to Demonstrate Witness’ Unavailability

The Fourth Department granted defendant a new trial because the defense request for a missing witness jury instruction was denied.  The witness, who had testified before the grand jury,  was the only eyewitness to the relevant events.  The prosecutor argued the witness was unavailable because he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  The Fourth Department determined the witness’ unavailablity was not sufficiently established:

Contrary to the People’s contention, they failed to establish that the eyewitness was unavailable. Although the People correctly note that “a witness who on Fifth Amendment grounds refuses to testify will be considered unavailable’ although the witness’s presence is known and apparent” …, the People failed to establish that the eyewitness was unavailable on that ground. An uncharged accomplice may be considered unavailable in certain circumstances …, but the statements made by the prosecutor were not sufficient to establish that the eyewitness was an accomplice or that he faced any criminal liability for his actions … . The People’s further contention that the prosecutor could not call the eyewitness inasmuch “as his attorney will have him plead the Fifth Amendment” is not supported by evidence in the record before us. It is well settled that a trial court “should . . . be reasonably sure that the witness will in fact invoke the privilege, and where there is doubt the witness should be brought before the court and asked the relevant questions” … . Here, the prosecutor did not call the eyewitness and there was no communication from the eyewitness’s attorney; thus, “there was no verification that [the eyewitness] would plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand” … . The People’s “bare allegation that the witness in question apparently’ would assert [his] Fifth Amendment privilege, in light of the attendant circumstances, did not render that witness unavailable” … . People v Fuqua, 2014 NY Slip Op 07784, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper

In upholding the validity of an inventory search of defendant’s vehicle, the Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

It is well settled that, “[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith’ ” … . Thus, “[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers were thereafter entitled to impound the vehicle” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents” … . “Such searches, conducted as routine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner’s property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect the police from potential danger” … . Here, the police officers properly impounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed an inventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga Police Department procedure, during which they discovered the handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized during that inventory search. People v Tardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07880, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than 45 Days After Arraignment (the Motion Had Been Granted and the People Appealed)

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical blood test should not have been granted because the motion was made more than 45 days after arraignment:

The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of defendant’s blood, which had been taken from defendant more than two hours after his arrest (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). The motion was made … more than 45 days after defendant’s arraignment …, and was therefore untimely as a matter of law (see CPL 255.20 [1]). We conclude that County Court abused its discretion in entertaining and granting the untimely motion because there was no good cause shown by defendant for an extension of time (see CPL 255.20 [3]…). People v Enright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07850, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Statements Made by Defendant to Physician In Presence of Police Investigator Not Privileged

The Fourth Department determined the physician-patient privilege did not protect statements made by the defendant to the doctor while a police investigator was in the room:

We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing a medical professional to testify to statements defendant made to her while being examined at the hospital after his arrest. Defendant contends that his statements were subject to the physician-patient privilege despite the presence of a police investigator in the examination room because he was in custody and was not able to tell the investigator to leave the room. The physician-patient privilege, which is “entirely a creature of statute” .., is set forth in CPLR 4504 (a), and is applicable to criminal proceedings by virtue of CPL 60.10 … . In determining whether the physician-patient privilege applies, we must consider “whether in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, and particularly the occasion for the presence of the third person, the communication was intended to be confidential” … . Here, we conclude that defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the privilege applied … , because there was no showing that he intended that his statements be confidential. Defendant was aware of the investigator’s presence, but he did not ask to speak with the medical professional privately. Additionally, defendant made numerous statements to others that were similar to the statements he made to the medical professional, both before and after making them to her. People v Hartle, 2014 NY Slip Op 07812, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Comparative Negligence in Striking a Bicyclist Travelling the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a bicycle-vehicle collision action.  The bicyclist was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and the collision occurred in an intersection after defendant had stopped at a stop sign before entering the intersection.  Although the bicyclist was negligent as a matter of law, the court determined that a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s failure to see what was there to be seen (comparative negligence):

… [T]he defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident … . When asked at her deposition when she first saw the plaintiff’s bicycle, she responded “I saw an object. As I was — I stopped. And then as I proceeded to cross the intersection, I felt something. And I saw an object.” This testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses … and whether she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision with the plaintiff’s bicycle … . Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Palmeri v Erricola, 2014 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)

The Second Department determined the evidence of “physical injury” suffered by Sergeant Klein , required for the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Sergeant Klein did not testify at trial. His medical records, which were admitted into evidence, indicated that he suffered a laceration to a finger on his right hand, with abrasions, pain, and swelling. While it is true that, to constitute physical injury, the pain caused by such a wound need not “be severe or intense to be substantial” …, it must, at a minimum, cause “more than slight or trivial pain” (id. at 447) or, to some extent, result in the impairment of the use of the finger (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]). No evidence was introduced that the injuries sustained by Sergeant Klein caused him more than trivial pain, or that the use of his finger was impaired by these injuries … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree under count two of the indictment must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Perry, 2014 NY Slip Op 07689, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Malicious Prosecution Requires Something More than Merely Reporting an Alleged Incident to Authorities/Uncorroborated, Incredible, Allegations by Plaintiff Did Not Raise a Question of Fact

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined summary judgment in favor of the defendants was properly granted for malicious prosecution and defamation causes of action.  Plaintiff, Moorhouse, had been charged with attempted rape of a hotel worker, G.P., and was acquitted.  He then brought a civil suit alleging, among other causes of action, malicious prosecution and defamation.  The First Department explained that plaintiff’s uncorroborated, incredible version of events, contradicted by eyewitness testimony which corroborated the hotel worker’s allegations, and the acquittal itself, did not raise a question of fact:

In the malicious prosecution cause of action, Moorhouse contends that G.P. initiated the criminal proceeding against him without probable cause and with malice … . The Court of Appeals has imposed “stringent requirements” for bringing malicious prosecution claims … . The Court explained that this is necessary “to effectuate the strong public policy of open access to the courts for all parties without fear of reprisal in the form of a retaliatory lawsuit” … . To prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff has a “heavy burden” …, and must establish the following four elements: “(1) the initiation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) lack of probable cause, and (4) malice” … . A plaintiff’s failure to prove any one of these elements will defeat the entire claim … .

A civilian who simply provides information to law enforcement authorities, who are then free to exercise their own independent judgment as to whether an arrest should be made and criminal charges filed, will generally not be held liable for malicious prosecution … . To establish the element of initiation of a criminal proceeding, it typically must be shown that the defendant did something “more than merely report a crime to the police and cooperate in its prosecution” … . Instead “[t]he defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such [*5]as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his own volition” … . Moorhouse v Standard NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 07605, 1st Dept 11-6-14

 

, ,

Trial Court Properly Amended Pleadings Sua Sponte and Properly Allowed Plaintiff to Reopen the Case to Present Additional Evidence of Damages

The Second Department held that Supreme Court properly amended the pleadings sua sponte and properly allowed the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof:

A court may amend pleadings before or after judgment to conform them to the evidence (see CPLR 3025[c]). Where no prejudice is shown, an amendment may be allowed during or even after trial … . Furthermore, an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion … . A trial court, in the exercise of discretion and for sufficient reasons, may allow a party to reopen his or her case, and supplement the evidence to cure any defects in the evidence that have inadvertently occurred … .

Here, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, amending the pleadings, continuing the trial, and permitting the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof of damages … . MRI Enters Inc v Comprehensive Med Care of NY PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07482, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert

In affirming the conviction, the Second Department explained the discretionary criteria for qualifying an expert at trial, which does not necessarily depend upon formal training:

The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion … . “The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject” … . People v Dorvilier, 2014 NY Slip Op 07517, 2nd Dept, 11-5-14

 

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