You are here: / Evidence
,

Ambiguity of Contract Is a Question of Fact Where Credibility of Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Assessed

The First Department determined there was question of fact whether defendant signed a note in his personal as well as corporate capacity. The court explained the relevant analysis where a contract is ambiguous:

A contract is ambiguous if “on its face [it] is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . The determination whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court … . If the court deems a contract ambiguous, it may consult extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity … . However, where “the determination of the parties’ intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact” … .  Chen v Yan, 2013 NY Slip Op 05957, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

,

Hearsay Not Assessed for Reliability—Determination Annulled

The Third Department annulled a determination that was based upon hearsay which had not been assessed for reliability:

While hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt, it must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess its reliability and credibility … .   The basis for the charges here were written and oral statements by inmates implicating petitioner as the thief.  There is no indication, however, that those statements were independently reviewed by the Hearing Officer, who based his determination solely upon the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction lieutenant who authored it.  Matter of Carrasquillo…, 515970, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

,

Authenticity of Document Not Demonstrated

In finding the existence of a contract had not been demonstrated, the Second Department explained the relevant evidentiary rules concerning the authenticity of a document submitted as proof of a contract:

The general rule is that “[a] writing is ordinarily not relevant at trial unless evidence had been introduced to show that it was made, signed or adopted by a particular person” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence, § 9-101 [2008]). “A private document offered to prove the existence of a valid contract cannot be admitted into evidence unless its authenticity and genuineness are first properly established” … . The authenticity of a document may be established by submitting the document with a certificate of acknowledgment …, which was not done here. Nor was any other evidence submitted as to the validity of the documents in issue. Fairlane Fin Corp v Greater Metro Agency, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05875, 9-18-13

 

, ,

Summary Judgment Can Not Be Granted Based on Affidavit By Someone with No Personal Knowledge of the Facts, Even If Factual Information Not Disputed

A mortgage foreclosure action was discontinued at the plaintiff’s request because the limited signing officer who signed the affidavit in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment did not have personal knowledge of the facts.  The defendant then cross-moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s papers.  In explaining that Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the action, the Second Department wrote:

…[W]here a motion for summary judgment is based solely upon an affidavit of someone with no personal knowledge of the facts, that circumstance generally presents only a ground for the denial of summary judgment…, not a ground to dismiss the action. [Defendant] failed to establish grounds to dismiss the action against her with prejudice, and there is no basis in this record supporting that request for relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of [defendant’s] cross motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the action against her with prejudice… . GMAC Mtge LLC v Bisceglie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05878, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined evidence seized from defendant’s home and statements made by the defendant should have been suppressed.  Using the authority to visit parolees, the police accompanied the parole officer to defendant’s home as part of a burglary investigation. The defendant was arrested after stolen property was noticed by the police in the home.  In determining the trial court erred when it found defendant had consented to the entry of the police into his home, the court wrote:

When the People rely on consent to justify an otherwise unlawful police intrusion, they bear the “heavy burden” of establishing that such consent was freely and voluntarily given … . “Consent to search is voluntary when it is a true act of the will, an unequivocal product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice. Voluntariness is incompatible with official coercion, actual or implicit, overt or subtle” … . The People’s burden of proving voluntariness “cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority” … .

We agree with the defendant that the People failed to prove that his consent to the entry into his home was voluntary. Consent is not voluntary where an officer falsely represents facts that normally establish the exercise of police authority to which a person would ordinarily yield … . Here, pursuant to the conditions of the defendant’s release to parole supervision, he was obligated to allow his parole officer to enter his home to conduct a home visit and conduct a related search of his residence. The People showed no more than the defendant’s acquiescence to this authority, which does not sustain their burden of proving that he freely and voluntarily consented to the entry by the detectives and the sergeant for the purpose of investigating the subject burglaries. People v Marcial, 2013 NY Slip Op 05920, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, , ,

Death Threats Not Protected Under First Amendment; Hearsay May Be Basis of Administrative Determination

In affirming the arbitrator’s recommendation a teacher should be terminated for making death threats against an arbitrator in a prior disciplinary proceeding, the First Department noted that hearsay can be the basis for an administrative determination and explained the threats were not protected by the First Amendment:

We reject petitioner’s allegations that the instant disciplinary proceeding and the ultimate discipline imposed against him violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Supreme Court properly deferred to the arbitrator’s finding that petitioner’s statements are exempt from First Amendment protection because they constitute “true threats.” We note that petitioner’s former attorney only disclosed the threats because he believed that petitioner’s increasingly erratic behavior rendered him genuinely dangerous. Under the circumstances, it cannot be argued that petitioner’s speech implicates matters of public concern … . Nor can it be disputed that petitioner’s death threats disrupted the initial arbitration proceeding… . Matter of Smith v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2013 NY Slip Op 05765, 1st Dept 9-3-13

 

,

Level One Request for Information Not Justified by “Drug-Prone” Area or Defendant’s “Flight”—Seized Handgun Should Have Been Suppressed

Over a dissent, the First Department determined the facts did not justify a level one stop of the defendant by the police inside a New York City Housing Authority building and, therefore, the motion to suppress the handgun found in defendant’s pocket should have been granted. The First Department explained that a defendant’s presence in a high-crime or drug-prone alone does not justify a police request for information:

The uniformed police officers entered the building to check on other officers stationed inside. As the officers made their way towards the lobby, they saw defendant descending the stairs. When defendant saw the officers, he froze, jerked back, began to retreat, then stopped and stood on the stairs. Based on defendant’s reaction, and given the drug-prone nature of the building, the officers “suspected [defendant of] trespassing,” and asked him to come down the stairs to “make sure if he lived in the building.”

Defendant initially told the officers that he lived there. However, when asked for identification, he began to stutter, and changed his story to say that he was visiting his girlfriend. Although defendant stated that he had his identification in his pocket, he began moving his hands “all over the place, especially around his chest area,” which the officers interpreted to be threatening and indicative of possession of a weapon. To “take control of the situation” before it could “get out of hand,” an officer grabbed defendant’s left arm and brought it behind defendant’s back, which caused defendant’s open jacket to open up further and reveal a silver pistol in the netted interior coat pocket. One officer removed the pistol from the pocket, and another handcuffed defendant. * * *

Presence in a high-crime or drug-prone location, without more, does not furnish an objective credible reason for the police to approach an individual and request information … . As we have observed, “[T]he reputation of a location, however notorious, does not provide a predicate for subversion of the Fourth Amendment” … .

Nor does an individual’s desire to avoid contact with police—even in a high-crime neighborhood–constitute an objective credible reason for making a level one inquiry… .  People v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05723, 1st Dept 8-27-13

 

, ,

Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department determined defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense.  The primary problem identified by the Second Department (among many others not mentioned here but worth reading about) was the preclusion of evidence that the victim had repeatedly identified someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.  Two crucial pieces of such evidence, an entry in the victim’s diary and a statement made to a third party by the victim, were hearsay.  The court found that the People’s hearsay objection was waived because it wasn’t raised before the appeal. Concerning the failure to allow evidence of the victim’s identification of another as the perpetrator, the Second Department wrote:

“Before permitting evidence that another individual committed the crime for which a defendant is on trial, the court is required to determine if the evidence is relevant and probative of a fact at issue in the case, and further that it is not based upon suspicion or surmise” … . “Then, the court must balance the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect to the People and may, in an exercise of its discretion, exclude relevant evidence that will cause undue prejudice, delay the trial, or confuse or mislead the jury” … . Although a trial court has “broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters” …, “the trial court’s discretion in this area is circumscribed by the defendant’s constitutional rights to present a defense and confront his accusers” … .

Here, the evidence that the victim identified Uppal as the perpetrator was exculpatory evidence that was directly relevant to the fundamental issue in this case—the identity of the attacker. Furthermore, such evidence of third-party culpability, coming from the victim of the crime herself, cannot be properly characterized as “rest[ing] on mere suspicion or surmise”… People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05707, 2nd Dept 8-21-13

 

, , ,

Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from precluding the testimony of the complainant in a robbery case. The judge had precluded the testimony after the complainant refused to sign a HIPAA form to release his psychiatric records.  The complainant had acknowledged that he received psychiatric treatment and that he had auditory and visual hallucinations which were controlled by medication.  The First Department wrote:

An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction … . “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be . . . but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” … . Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material … . It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant’s records and did not know where he had been treated … . The People had no affirmative duty to ascertain the extent of the complainant’s psychiatric history or obtain his records … . The People advised the defense of the information they had regarding the complainant’s diagnosis and also apprised the defense of the complainant’s statements regarding his hallucinations. Therefore, no claim can be made that the People concealed any information from the court or the defense.  Matter of Johnson v Sackett, 2013 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

,

In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly Denied and Cross-Examination About Psychiatric History Properly Prohibited

In a sexual-offense case, the Fourth Department affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense access to the victim’s psychiatric records and the court’s preculsion of cross-examination of the victim about her psychiatric history:

Mental health records are discoverable “where a defendant can demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that the records contain ‘data relevant and material to the determination of guilt or innocence,’ a decision which will rest ‘largely on the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court’ ”… ..  Here, the court reviewed the records in camera before ruling that defendant was not entitled to any portion of that victim’s mental health counseling records, and the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion.

We reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the same victim regarding her psychiatric history.  “A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him through cross-examination.  With respect to the psychiatric condition of a witness, ‘the defense is entitled to show that the witness’s capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by that condition’ ”… .  Here, defendant was permitted to question that victim about any medications that she was presently taking and whether those medications impaired her memory or affected her testimony.  However, defendant failed to show that her psychiatric history “would bear upon her credibility or otherwise be relevant”  … .  People v Tirado, 486, 4th Dept 8-15-13

 

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