You are here: / Evidence
,

Expert Evidence to Explain an Adolescent’s Reactions to Sexual Abuse Properly Admitted

The Second Department determined expert testimony about “adolescent sexual abuse” was properly admitted in a sex-crime trial to explain delay in reporting, imprecise memory, accommodation, and a “flat affect” during testimony:

“Expert testimony is properly admitted if it helps to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror'” … . “[E]xpert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome, abused child syndrome or similar conditions may be admitted to explain behavior of a victim that might appear unusual or that jurors may not be expected to understand” … . The expert’s testimony was properly admitted to explain the issue of delayed disclosure and to counter the defense claim that the complainant fabricated the sexual abuse allegations when her parents objected to her having a boyfriend … . The testimony was also properly admitted to explain why the complainant did not recall with specificity when certain of the alleged incidents occurred, and why victims of adolescent sexual abuse may manifest a “flat affect” when testifying. The testimony was “general in nature and does not attempt to impermissibly prove that the charged crimes occurred” … . To the extent the expert testified as to an abuser’s behavior patterns, such testimony was admissible to help explain “why victims may accommodate abusers and why they wait before disclosing the abuse” … . People v Gopaul, 2013 NY Slip Op 08659, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

, , ,

Defendant-Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Action May Be Questioned (by the Plaintiff) As an Expert About His Own Treatment of Plaintiff

The Third Department determined (1) the defendant doctor in a medical malpractice action can be deposed as an expert (by the plaintiff)  with respect to his treatment (the doctor was asked whether the treatment as described in the records deviated from the standard of care); (2) the defendant doctor must answer the question whether he has given any statements to a quality assurance committee, even though the statements themselves would be privileged; (3) substantial changes to deposition testimony in an errata sheet would be allowed, but, based on the substantive nature of the changes, further deposition of the witness was appropriate as well.  With respect to questioning the defendant doctor as an expert about his own treatment, the court wrote:

In the context of a medical malpractice action, the Court of Appeals has held that “a plaintiff . . . is entitled to call the defendant doctor to the stand and question him [or her] both as to his [or her] factual knowledge of the case (that is, as to his [or her] examination, diagnosis, treatment and the like) and, if he [or she] be so qualified, as an expert for the purpose of establishing the generally accepted medical practice in the community” … .  Thus, although “one defendant physician may not be examined before trial about the professional quality of the services rendered by a codefendant physician if the questions bear solely on the alleged negligence of the codefendant and not on the practice of the witness[,] [w]here . . . the opinion sought refers to the treatment rendered by the witness, the fact that it may also refer to the services of a codefendant does not excuse the defendant witness from [being deposed] as an expert” … . Lieblich … v Saint Peter’s Hospital of the City of Albany…, 516736, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis

The Third Department determined that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because a party [Lafond] who had signed the report identifying the controlled substance defendant was accused of selling did not testify.  The court determined Lafond had nothing to do with the chemical tests and analysis.  The party who actually did the chemical tests and analysis, Brant, testified:

…Brant – the analyst who identified the oxycodone, performed the chemical tests on it, determined the nature of the substance, and authored the report – in fact testified and was subject to crossexamination … .  The report is certified pursuant to CPL 190.30 (2) with the following language: “I, Clifford E. Brant, . . . hereby certify” and then states that it is “my [i.e. Brant’s] report and contains the opinions and interpretations of the examination I performed in the above referenced case” (emphasis added).  Brant also testified that Lafond cosigned the report after an administrative review of it, as required by State Police protocol.  There is no support in the record for the proposition that Lafond examined or analyzed the substance, observed Brant doing so, or was signing the report in that capacity.  Indeed, Brant testified that after he alone performed the forensic chemical testing, he sealed, signed and dated the laboratory bag containing the pill, which remained intact as of the trial, supporting the conclusion that Lafond only read and signed the report after it was completed to ensure that proper procedure was followed …, and she had no role in ascertaining or verifying the identity of the substance in issue.  Thus, the “actual analyst who performed the tests” … and “wr[o]te [the] report[]” … testified.   We find that Lafond, who neither analyzed the substance in issue nor authored the report, was not a “witness” against defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause … and, accordingly, no Crawford violation occurred as a result of the People admitting Brant’s report into evidence without calling Lafond to testify. People v Wolz, 104909, 104910, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

,

Prima Facie Proof Requirements for Entitlement to Payment of “No-Fault” Medical Expenses Clarified

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, over the partial dissent by two justices, the Second Department resolved a conflict in its authority regarding what a medical provider must demonstrate to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to payment for medical treatment under the no-fault regime.  In Art of Healing Medicine PC v Travelers Home & Mar Ins Co (55 AD3d at 64), the Second Department wrote that “[t]he plaintiffs [ ] medical service providers failed to demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule”… . Based upon that language in “Art of Healing…,” several Appellate Term decisions “found that the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie burden where it relied upon the affidavit of a biller who did not possess personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures so as to establish that the claim forms annexed to the plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule…”.  In the instant case, the Second Department rejected that interpretation and reiterated that all a medical provider must demonstrate to make out a prima facie case is the submission of the proper billing forms and the failure to deny or pay the claim within the statutory period:

The requirement in Insurance Law § 5106(a) that a claimant must submit “proof of the fact and amount of the loss sustained” in order to trigger the 30-day period in which to pay or deny a claim refers to the contents of the billing forms, not the merits of the claim. * * *

The “how” evidentiary component of the plaintiff’s proof is met by, inter alia, the affidavit of a billing agent or an employee of the medical provider; that is, someone with personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s billing methods … . The billing agent will (1) attest that he/she personally sent the billing forms to the insurer, that the insurer received the same, and that the insurer failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or (2) set forth the procedures customarily utilized in the ordinary course of its business regarding the mailing/receipt of such forms and that the insurer failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period. As part of its prima facie showing, the plaintiff is not required to show that the contents of the statutory no-fault forms themselves are accurate or that the medical services documented therein were actually rendered or necessary. Stated another way, the plaintiff is not required to establish the merits of the claim to meet its prima facie burden. To the extent that Art of Healing imposes a “business record” requirement obliging the plaintiff to establish the truth or the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, we overrule Art of Healing. Viviane Etienne Med Care PC v Country-Wide Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 08430, 2nd Dept 12-18-13

 

, , ,

Civil Contempt Does Not Include the Element of Willfulness/Adverse Inference May Be Drawn Re: Assertion of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Civil Contempt Proceeding

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Angiolillo, the Second Department cleared up some confusion created by conflicting authority concerning whether willfulness was an element of civil contempt.  The defendant was held in contempt based upon his failure to deposit the proceeds of the sale of marital property with the court. The Second Department concluded willfulness is not an element of civil contempt.  In addition, the Second Department explained that the defendant’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the contempt proceedings did not preclude the court from drawing an adverse inference and did not relieve the defendant of his burden of proof:

…[W]e conclude that, for the plaintiff to prevail on her motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt, she was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence “(1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct” … . The use of the words “willful” and “willfully” in some of our cases involving civil contempt …, should not be construed to import the element of willfulness into a civil contempt motion made pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753(A)(3). “It is not necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the rights or remedies of a party” … . * * *

“[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them” … . “In New York, unlike the rule in a criminal case, a party’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case may be considered by the finder of the facts in assessing the strength of the evidence offered by the opposing party on the issue which the witness was in a position to controvert” … .  El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 2013 NY Slip Op 08404, 2nd Dept 12-18-13

 

 

,

Police Officers Properly Allowed to Testify About Victim’s Identification of Defendant Shortly After the Crime/Prior Consistent Statements Not Hearsay

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that two police officers, as well as the victim, were properly allowed to testify about the victim’s identification of the defendant shortly after the crime, extending the rule announced by the Court of Appeals in People v Huertas (75 NY2d 487):

Velez [the victim] identified defendant at trial as one of the robbers and also testified, without objection, to a description he had given the police on the night of the crime of a black man “about 5’6, short hair, round face, thick eyebrows” and wearing a white shirt.  The description fits defendant, but in the video the man alleged to be defendant is wearing a blueish-gray shirt.  Velez testified that, before he saw the video, he realized that his description of the shirt was in error, and corrected it.

Two police officers also testified, over objection, that Velez had given a description on the night of the crime. The officers’ accounts of the description were brief, and consistent with Velez’s.  One said that Velez had described a man “between 5’6 to 5’7 in height wearing shorts and . . . a white T-shirt.”  The other said only that Velez had described “a short black male, dark skinned.” * * *

Huertas involved a … prior consistent statement: a witness’s description, given shortly after the crime, of the person who committed it.  Huertas held testimony about a description to be admissible not under any exception to the hearsay rule, but because the testimony is not hearsay at all. It is admitted not for the truth or accuracy of the prior description, but as “evidence that assists the jury in evaluating the witness’s opportunity to observe at the time of the crime, and the reliability of her memory at the time of the corporeal identification” (Huertas, 75 NY2d at 493).  * * *

The issue here is whether the rule of Huertas, like CPL 60.30’s hearsay exception for prior eyewitness identifications, is limited to a witness’s account of his or her own previous statement.  We see nothing to justify such a limitation.  A statement that is not hearsay when the declarant testifies to it does not become hearsay when someone else does so. People v Smith, 226, CtApp 12-17-13

 

,

Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Refresh Witness’s Recollection With a Prior Statement/Conviction Reversed

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge refused to permit defense counsel to refresh a witness’s recollection with the witness’s prior statement.  Defendant had the victim in a headlock during a fight. The victim subsequently died.  A central issue at trial was how long defendant held the victim in a headlock.  One witness (Flynn) gave a statement indicating the headlock lasted 6 to 10 seconds.  The People did not call her.  The defense called her and she testified the headlock could have lasted “a minute or so.”  Defense counsel then attempted to refresh her recollection with her prior statement.  The trial court didn’t allow it, saying the witness had “given no indication she needs her memory refreshed:”

When a witness, describing an incident more than a year in the past, says that it “could have” lasted “a minute or so,” and adds “I don’t know,” the inference that her recollection could benefit from being refreshed is a compelling one.  More fundamentally, it was simply unfair to let the jury hear the “a minute or so” testimony -testimony damaging to the defense, from a defense witness’s own lips — while allowing the defense to make no use at all of an earlier, much more favorable, answer to the same question.  The trial court suggested to defense counsel that this was “an effort to impeach your own witness,” but counsel had not yet got to the point of impeachment; she only wanted to refresh the witness’s recollection.  And in any event, technical limitations on the impeachment of witnesses must sometimes give way, in a criminal case, to a defendant’s right to a fair trial (Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284 [1973]). People v Oddone, 236, CtApp 12-12-13

 

,

Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, the First Department determined a (hearsay) statement by a witness indicating she (not the defendant) was driving when the property-damage accident occurred should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest.  The central question was whether the declarant was aware she was admitting to a violation of law when the statement was made:

The decision whether to admit a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule requires, among other factors, that the declarant be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his or her penal interest. The issue in this case is whether a statement in which an individual admits to conduct constituting an offense is a statement against penal interest, where the individual believes that the conduct may be illegal but does not know whether it is or not. It arose in the context of a DWI case where the defense was that defendant, who was intoxicated, was not the driver of the car, but a passenger. Specifically, the driver, a 19-year-old woman with no prior criminal history and only a learner’s permit, who met defendant approximately eight hours earlier, made a statement to a defense investigator indicating that she, and not defendant, was driving defendant’s car at the time it collided with a parked car, but refused to testify at trial on Fifth Amendment grounds. We find that the statement was a declaration against penal interest notwithstanding that some of the witness’s apprehension in making the statement was based on her fear that her parents would learn of her involvement with defendant or that, as the court noted, her exposure to criminal liability was relatively minor. The court therefore erred in keeping the statement out. * * *

…[W]e hold that regardless of whether [the witness] was specifically aware that the conduct she admitted constituted a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600, which prohibits an operator of a motor vehicle who causes property damage from leaving the scene, or whether she was specifically aware that she faced a penalty of up to 15 days’ imprisonment and a fine for that offense, the evidence established that her statement satisfied this hearsay exception. Her expressions, at the time of or immediately after her statement, of apprehension that she could get in trouble for her conduct, including repeated inquiries about consulting with a lawyer, sufficed to satisfy the requirement that “the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his [or her] penal interest”… . People v Soto, 2013 NY Slip Op 08217, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

 

,

“Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First Trial May Not Be Contradicted by Evidence Presented in the Second Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited the introduction of evidence a firearm was displayed in the course of a robbery.  In the first trial, the defendant was acquitted of First Degree Robbery (which requires display of a firearm) and convicted of Second Degree Robbery (display of a weapon is not an element of Second Degree Robbery). The conviction was reversed on appeal.  In the second trial (for Second Degree Robbery only), the People presented evidence a weapon was displayed.  The court found the People were collaterally estopped from presenting evidence of the display of a weapon in the second trial:

This case is controlled by our holding in People v Acevedo (69 NY2d 478, 480 [1987]) that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied to issues of ‘evidentiary’ fact.”  As we explained in Acevedo, in the analysis of collateral estoppel issues, facts essential to the second judgment are considered “ultimate” facts; other facts are only “evidentiary” (id. at 480 n 1).  Under Acevedo, when an issue of evidentiary fact has been resolved in a defendant’s favor by a jury, the People may not, at a later trial, present evidence that contradicts the first jury’s finding.  People v O’Toole, 233, CtApp 12-10-13

 

, , ,

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Finding Re: Extent of Disability Should Not Be Given Collateral-Estoppel Effect in Related Negligence Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that collateral-estoppel effect should not be given to a finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board in a related negligence action.  Plaintiff, a delivery person, had been struck by a piece of plywood which fell from a building under construction in 2003.  The Workers’ Compensation Board found that plaintiff’s disability from the accident ceased as of January, 2006. In the related negligence action, the defendant sought to limit plaintiff’s proof of disability to the period prior to January, 2006.  The court held “that there is no identity of issue and that collateral estoppel therefore should not be applied:”

…[D]efendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the issue decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding was identical to that presented in this negligence action.  We have observed that the Workers’ Compensation Law “is the State’s most general and comprehensive social program, enacted to provide all injured employees with some scheduled compensation and medical expenses, regardless of fault for ordinary and unqualified employment duties” … .  The purpose of awarding such benefits is to provide funds on an expedited basis that will function as a substitute for an injured employee’s wages … .  We have observed that the term “disability,” as used in the Workers’ Compensation Law, “generally refers to inability to work” … .  In addition, the Board uses the term “disability” in order to make classifications according to degree (total or partial) and duration (temporary or permanent) of an employee’s injury … .  The focus of the act, plainly, is on a claimant’s ability to perform the duties of his or her employment.

By contrast, a negligence action is much broader in scope.  It is intended to make an injured party whole for the enduring consequences of his or her injury — including, as relevant here, lost income and future medical expenses. Necessarily, then, the negligence action is focused on the larger question of the impact of the injury over the course of plaintiff’s lifetime.  Although there is some degree of overlap between the issues being determined in the two proceedings, based on the scope and focus of each type of action, it cannot be said that the issues are identical. Auqui v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, 212, CtApp 12-10-13

 

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