You are here: / Evidence
,

Criteria for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Finding a Verdict to be Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

In the context of a personal injury action, where the issue was whether plaintiff’s injury was “serious” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d), the Second Department explained the criteria for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 and finding a verdict to be against the weight of the evidence.  The Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s post-verdict motions but found the damages awarded by the jury to be excessive:

” To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the moving defendant'” … . In considering the motion for judgment as a matter of law, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … .  * * *

A jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when the evidence so preponderates in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert’s opinion, and reject that of another expert … . “Issues of credibility are for the jury, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and the evidence. Its resolution is entitled to deference” … . “[A] successful party is entitled to a presumption that the jury adopted a reasonable view of the evidence” … .  Cicola v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 06293, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment

The Second Department determined that a new trial was required because defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The police pulled the defendant from inside his home to arrest him without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Second Department noted, however, that the trial court did not err in refusing the suppress evidence of a post-arrest lineup identification:

Here, the police knocked on the defendant’s door at approximately 6:50 a.m. When the defendant answered the door he appeared to be “half asleep,” and was naked from the waist down. He only partially opened the door, was never in full view of the police, and never crossed the threshold of his apartment. When the police directed the defendant to step fully into view, the defendant instead attempted to shut the door, trapping a detective’s arm as the detective tried to keep the door from closing. After law enforcement officials successfully pushed the door open, they pulled the defendant from the area behind the door into the public hallway, where he was then arrested.

Under the discrete circumstances of this case, where the police officers crossed the threshold into the defendant’s apartment, pulled him into the hallway, and arrested him without a warrant, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … . People v Riffas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed because the police arrested him in the absence of probable cause.  Two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest were in the backseat of a legally parked vehicle.  Defendant was in the driver’s seat, fumbling with the ignition keys when the police first saw him.  The police pulled him from the vehicle and arrested him.  The Second Department found the arrest premature. Because of the presence of the two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest, there was only a reasonable suspicion of the defendant’s involvement which justified only forcible detention for a brief investigation:

The hearing testimony established that at approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 10, 2009, the police received a radio transmission regarding a robbery in progress, perpetrated by two black males, at a Queens residence. The police activated their sirens and lights and went to the specified house, arriving within two minutes of receiving the transmission. When the police arrived, two of the complainants, still gagged and partially bound, were on the porch of the house. The complainants used gestures to direct the officers’ attention to two men, Myers and Santos, who were walking on the sidewalk, about four houses away. Myers and Santos, who were the only civilians on the block, started running, and the officers chased them. During the chase, Santos discarded an object, which the police later recovered and found to be a gun. When Myers and Santos turned a corner several blocks from the complainants’ house, the officers lost sight of them briefly. When one of the officers turned the corner, he did not see any people, but saw the rear passenger door on a sport utility vehicle being closed. The vehicle was legally parked and the engine was off. The officer ran to the vehicle and peered inside through the tinted windows. After spotting Myers and Santos in the rear passenger seat, the officer “punched” the driver’s side window to alert the driver not to drive away. The officer pulled the driver’s door open and saw the defendant in the driver’s seat, “fumbling” with the keys and trying to put them in the ignition. The officer pulled the defendant out of the car, placed him face-down on the ground, and handcuffed him. Eventually, the defendant was placed in a police car. People v Delvillartron, 2014 NY Slip Op 06327, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

Appellate Court Can Exercise Its Own Discretion Re: Scope of Discovery, Even in the Absence of Abuse

The First Department determined, over a dissent, that Supreme Court had improperly restricted the discovery of software code.  The court explained its power to overrule the trial court in this regard and the underlying principle allowing broad discovery:

New York strongly encourages open and full disclosure as a matter of policy … . To that end, CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.”

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in its supervision of disclosure … . Indeed, “deference is afforded to the trial court’s discretionary determinations regarding disclosure” … . However, “[t]his Court is vested with the power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court, even in the absence of abuse” … . We have observed that we “rarely and reluctantly invoke” our power to substitute our own discretion for that of the motion court … . We find that this case presents one of those rare instances in which we are compelled to substitute our discretion for that of the motion court. MSCI Inc v Jacob, 2014 NY Slip Op 06239, 1st Dept 8-18-14

 

,

Record Did Not Demonstrate Defendant Understood His Miranda Rights—Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The People failed to demonstrate defendant understood his right to remain silent:

Contrary to the hearing court’s determination, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing was insufficient to establish that the defendant’s statements to law enforcement officials were made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Although the defendant’s refusal to sign the Miranda card did not, in itself, preclude the finding of a valid waiver …, the record was devoid of any indication that the defendant clearly understood his Miranda rights as read to him … . People v Barnes, 2014 NY Slip Op 06209, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Motion to Vacate Convictions Granted—People Failed to Provide “Brady” Material In Time for the Defense to Make Meaningful Use of It

The Second Department, pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, vacated the defendants’ convictions because of the People’s failure to turn over documents which would have aided the defense (a “Brady” violation).  Although the documents were provided at the time of jury selection, they were mixed in with a large volume of other documents which effectively deprived the defense of notice of their existence.  There was a “reasonable probability” the documents, had they been used at trial to impeach police witnesses, would have changed the outcome of the trial:

The People have an obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence, known as Brady material, in their possession which is favorable to the defendant and material to his or her guilt or innocence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87…). Such evidence is to be produced regardless of whether a defendant requests the material … . The prosecutor’s duty to exchange Brady material extends to the disclosure of evidence that can be used to impeach the credibility of a witness for the People whose testimony may be determinative of the defendant’s guilt … . Such material is to be turned over to the defendant in time for him or her to use it in a meaningful fashion during cross-examination or as evidence during his or her own case … .

In order to establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to him or her; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued because the suppressed evidence was material … . As to the element of materiality, where there was only a general request by the defendant at the time of trial for exculpatory material, evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different … . Here, the manner in which the prosecution turned over the documents, during the course of jury selection, deprived the defendants of a meaningful opportunity to employ that evidence during their cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses … . People v Wagstaffe, 2014 NY Slip Op 06217, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a medical malpractice action, finding that the conditional granting of defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from submitting evidence of neurological injuries and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars constituted abuse of discretion.  The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not “willfully and contumaciously fail to appear for a neuropsychological examination” by the defendants’ doctor and the amendment of the bill of particulars would not prejudice the defendants.  The court noted that the plaintiffs’ request to audiotape the neurophsychological examination was not supported by “special and unusual circumstances” warranting it:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure, including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . However, “before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the hospital defendants’ motion which was to conditionally preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of the injured plaintiff’s neurological injuries, since there was no clear showing that the injured plaintiff had willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for a neuropsychological examination. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the conduct of the plaintiffs or their attorney warranted the imposition of sanctions. * * *

“Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . Where there is an unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend, without excuse, and the motion for leave to amend is made close to or on the eve of trial, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the relief … . However, lateness alone is “not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … . In this case, the proposed amendment was first sought in September 2011. Since the hospital defendants and Roca were aware of the plaintiffs’ allegations well before the eve of trial, they were not prejudiced by the amendment. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars … . Dimouslas v Roca, 2014 NY Slip Op 06170, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

The First Department explained that, while hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, it can not be the sole basis for denying the motion:

“A party opposing summary judgment may proffer hearsay evidence, but such proof may not be the sole factual basis for denying summary judgment” … . * * * …[D]efendant’s affidavit relies only on hearsay evidence … . The documentary evidence is to the contrary. Andron v Libby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06155, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

,

Failure to Subpoena Witness Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board because the putative employer, Brody, was entitled to call the claimant as a witness in a proceeding to determine whether Brody was required to make further unemployment insurance contributions. Claimant had done work for Brody and had subsequently applied for and was granted unemployment insurance benefits. Brody asked that claimant be subpoenaed to testify but the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the request:

Brody was entitled to call claimant as a witness and, moreover, had the right to request that the ALJ issue a subpoena to compel her attendance (see Labor Law § 622 [1]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]…). Claimant plainly had relevant testimony to offer as to whether an employer-employee relationship existed between her and Brody. The ALJ nevertheless declined to issue the requested subpoena, pointing out that counsel for Brody could have subpoenaed claimant directly. The failure to either issue a subpoena or to adjourn the proceedings so that counsel could do so constituted an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case and, thus, “we believe that the proper course is to reverse the Board’s decision and remit this matter for further proceedings”… . Matter of Philip…, 2014 Slip Op 06129, 3rd Dept 9-11-14

 

,

Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement

The Second Department determined the unauthorized taking of a buccal swap from a probationer for DNA testing required suppression of the DNA evidence.  The fact that the defendant was on probation did not strip the defendant of his Fourth Amendment rights.  However, because another DNA sample had been properly taken from the defendant a few days before, the identification evidence and defendant’s statement should not have been suppressed pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine:

The hearing court properly suppressed DNA evidence as tainted since the Nassau County Probation Department (hereinafter the Probation Department) took an unauthorized buccal swab from the defendant, which was a bodily intrusion subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment … . * * * The defendant’s status as a probationer did not “justify departures from the customary constitutional standards that apply in other settings” …, where, as here, it is undisputed that the provision of a DNA sample was not a condition of the defendant’s probation under any statutory or judicial authority. Moreover, since the DNA sample taken from the defendant implicated his constitutional rights, we reject the People’s argument that the Probation Department, in taking the unauthorized buccal swab, only committed a statutory violation that did not warrant suppression of evidence … .

The record reveals that an authorized DNA sample was taken from the defendant in connection with another, unrelated charge only days before he was arrested on the charges at issue on this appeal. Since another DNA sample had been taken from the defendant prior to his arrest, the People established a very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source during the normal course of police investigation … . Accordingly, the hearing court should not have suppressed the identification evidence and the defendant’s statement to the police.  People v Adams, 2014 NY Slip Op 06098, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

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