You are here: / Evidence
,

New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent Statements” Jury Charge; Prior Injuries to Child Admissible under Molineux

In this case the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of a three-year-old child.  In his statement to the police, the defendant said the child fell while she was in the shower. At trial the defendant testified the child also fell on the stairs.  The trial court gave an “inconsistent statements” charge to the jury, finding it would have been reasonable and logical for the defendant to have mentioned the fall on the stairs in his statement to police.  In upholding the trial court, the Third Department wrote:

In its general instructions to the jury, County Court included a charge regarding a witness testifying to a fact that the witness omitted at a prior time when it would have been reasonable and logical to have stated the fact (see CJI2d[NY] Credibility of Witnesses  [Inconsistent Statements]).Defendant contends that this constituted error. Defendant had given a detailed voluntary statement to police regarding the pertinent events surrounding the victim’s death. He did not include in that statement an account of the victim purportedly falling on the stairs while coming to eat lunch, but he testified regarding such event at trial. Since it would be reasonable to expect defendant to mention all potential injuries sustained by the victim while in his care that day, including this charge did not constitute reversible error.

In addition, the Third Department found no error in the trial court’s allowing evidence of prior injuries revealed by the autopsy and two injuries incurred by the child when she was in defendant’s care.  This evidence of “similar uncharged crimes” was deemed admissible under Molineux to demonstrate “the absence of an accident” as the cause of the child’s injuries.  People v Tinkler, 103766, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

 

,

Hearing Required to Determine If Complaint Properly Served

In remitting the case for a hearing to determine whether defendant was properly served with the complaint, the Second Department wrote:

Here, the affidavit of service of the plaintiff’s process server describing service of process on the defendant NES Medical Services of New York, P.C. (hereinafter NES), constituted prima facie evidence of proper service on NES … . In support of that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against NES on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, the appellants submitted an affidavit stating that the person served was neither employed by, nor authorized to accept service for, NES. Where, as here, “there is a sworn denial of service by the defendant, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing” …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on, and a new determination of, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against NES on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Rosario v NES Med Srvs of NY, PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02388, 2011-10662, Index No 4465/11, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

,

Unpleaded Cause of Action Can Be Raised in Opposition to Summary Judgment—Must Be Supported by Proof in Admissible Form

The Second Department noted that, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, an unpleaded cause of action (which must be supported by proof in admissible form) may be raised:

The plaintiff, in opposition, …raised a new theory of liability …. A plaintiff may successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action which is supported by the plaintiff’s proof …. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff’s submission in support of the unpleaded cause of action was an affirmation of an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts. That affirmation was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings …. Since the plaintiff submitted no evidence in admissible form in support of the unpleaded cause of action, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact. McCovey v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 02380, 2012-01315, Index No 38525/06, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

,

Requirements for Motion to Dismiss on Documentary Evidence

In this case, the Second Department addressed the proof requirements for a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion (motion to dismiss on documentary evidence), the potential validity of an unsigned agreement in the context of such a motion, and the proper remedy when a referee exceeds his or her authority:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, although [defendant] offered documentary proof that the loan reinstatement agreement was not signed…, this proof does not conclusively dispose of the plaintiff’s specific performance or breach of contract claims since an unsigned agreement may constitute an enforceable contract where there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound …. We further note that since [defendant] sought dismissal of the specific performance and breach of contract causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that it had a defense founded on documentary evidence, the motion should have been decided solely on the documentary evidence proffered in support of the motion. …. Furman v Wells Fargo Home Mtge Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02374, 2011-10281, 2011-10284, Index No 25616/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

,

Award of Sole Custody to Mother Without a Hearing Reversed—Reliance on Expert Recommendations Not Sufficient

In reversing the Family Court’s award of sole custody to the mother without a hearing, the Second Department wrote:

Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the children’s best interest so as to render a hearing unnecessary. Indeed, the court was not involved when the parties agreed to the existing custody and parenting agreement, and only became involved in this proceeding after the prior Family Court Judge in this matter retired. Furthermore, although the court had the recommendations of an expert before it, the recommendations of experts are but one factor to be considered …, and “are not determinative and do not usurp the judgment of the trial judge” …. Accordingly, the Family Court erred in denying the father’s petition and, inter alia, awarding sole physical custody to the mother without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of physical custody and visitation so that it could make an independent determination as to the best interests of the children on the basis of the evidence presented at such a hearing ….  Matter of Schyberg v Peterson, 2013 NY Slip Op 02406, 2011-1113, 2nd Dept, 4-10-12

 

, ,

Out-of-Pocket Expenses Must Be Alleged in Claim Based on Alleged Failure to Detect Child’s Medical Condition In Utero

In dismissing a medical malpractice action which was based upon a physician’s alleged failure to detect a medical condition from the review of a sonogram, a condition which may have caused the parents to terminate the pregnancy, the Second Department reviewed the available damages in such an action. Ultimately the Second Department determined that the plaintiffs’ failure to raise a question of fact about future expenses they will incur for care of the child (currently paid for by Medicaid) required dismissal of the complaint:

Although a child with a disability may not maintain a wrongful life cause of action, the child’s parents may, under certain circumstances, maintain a cause of action on their own behalf to recover the extraordinary costs incurred in raising the child … . To succeed on such a cause of action, which “sound[s] essentially in negligence or medical malpractice,” the plaintiffs “must demonstrate the existence of a duty, the breach of which may be considered the proximate cause of the damages suffered by” them … . Specifically, the parents must establish that malpractice by a defendant physician deprived them of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy within the legally permissible time period, or that the child would not have been conceived but for the defendant’s malpractice … . Further, the claimed damages cannot be based on mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, and, when sought in the form of extraordinary expenses related to caring for a disabled child, must be necessitated by and causally connected to the child’s condition …. The “parents’ legally cognizable injury’ is the increased financial obligation arising from the extraordinary medical treatment rendered the child during minority’” … . Since the parents’ recovery is limited to their personal pecuniary loss, expenses covered by other sources such as private insurance or public programs are not recoverable ….  Mayzel v Moretti, 2013 NY Slip Op 02379, 2011-11393, Index No 102307/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

, ,

Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits Re: Proximate Cause

In reversing the trial court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint, the First Department wrote:

In this medical malpractice appeal, defendants do not dispute that they departed from the accepted standard of care by incorrectly informing plaintiff that her April 9, 2007 PET scan was negative for recurrent cancer and not correcting that misinformation until November 2007. Defendants argue that the six month delay in notification did not cause plaintiff any injury. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . However, the motion court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact requiring the denial of defendants’ motion and a trial. The issue of whether a doctor’s negligence is more “likely than not a proximate cause of [a plaintiff’s] injury” is usually for the jury to decide… . There is a substantial dissent by Justice DeGrasse.  Polanco v Reed, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 02317, 303169/08, 8662A, 1st Dept 4-4-13

 

,

DeBour Criteria Met in Street Encounter Leading to Arrest; Statements Tainted by Miranda Violations Did Not Preclude Admission of Statement Made Seven Hours Later

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department upheld the denial of defendant’s suppression motions.  After hearing gun shots police officers approached the defendant. After defendant answered a couple of questions he “began to place his hand in his back pocket.”  At that point, the officer grabbed defendant’s arm and told defendant he wanted to frisk the defendant before allowing him to reach in his pockets.  As the officer began to frisk the defendant, the defendant ran and was brought the ground.  A firearm, still warm, was taken from the defendant’s back pocket.   Written statements subsequently given by the defendant were suppressed by the trial court because of a Miranda violation.  A videotaped statement, made seven hours after the tainted written statements, was deemed admissible:

Prior to pleading guilty, defendant moved to suppress a gun, recovered from his pocket, and videotaped statements he made to the prosecution as fruits of an unlawful seizure. He also moved to suppress the statements as obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. We conclude that the facts disclosed in the record were such as to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that defendant was reaching for a weapon when the arresting officer grabbed his arm. We also find that defendant’s videotaped statements were not suppressible, notwithstanding the suppression of prior written statements made more than seven hours earlier to police officers, because the videotaped statements were attenuated by a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” … .  People v Davis, 2012 NY Slip Op 02337, 6129, 9270, 1st Dept 4-4-13

 

,

“Prompt Outcry” Exception to Hearsay Rule Applied to Complaint Made After Several Days

The Third Department determined the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule applied to a very young victim who complained about the incident after several days:

Under the prompt outcry rule, “evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place” … . “‘[P]romptness is a relative concept  dependent  on  the  facts — what  might  qualify as  prompt  in one  case might  not in another'” ….   Here, the sexual contact occurred over a weekend during which the victim was in the care of defendant’s mother. The victim returned to his mother’s care on a Sunday and disclosed the events to her on the following Friday. Considering  the  victim’s young age and  the  familial relationship between  the victim and defendant, we  agree with County Court’s determination  that  the  hearsay  statements  fell within the prompt  outcry rule …, and  the court provided an  appropriate instruction limiting the use of the testimony … .  People v Lapi, 104623, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

,

DeBour Criteria Met By Facts Leading to Arrest

The Third Department determined the following scenario legitimately led to the defendant’s arrest under the DeBour criteria:

The officers arrived at the scene and observed approximately eight people sitting on the steps. As the officers approached the group, one of them – later identified as defendant– abruptly stood up and attempted to enter the building, but could not gain entry because the door was apparently locked.  One of the officers followed defendant up the steps, placed a hand on defendant’s shoulder and asked defendant why he was in a hurry. Defendant turned around, shoved the officer, said that he was “past curfew” and, after a brief struggle, ran down the steps and took off running down the street.  People v Morris, 104201, 3rd Dept, 4-4-13

STREET STOPS

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy