You are here: / Evidence
,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE AWARE THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS IN THE RESIDENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND WAS ARRESTED; THERE WERE NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE HOUSE AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE WEAPONS SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapons seized when the police did a “protective sweep” of defendant’s residence should have been granted. Defendant’s wife and daughter had left the residence and told the police, who were outside the residence, only the defendant was inside. Defendant eventually left the residence and was arrested. Only then did the police enter for the “protective sweep:”

… [W]e conclude that there were no emergency or exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the residence. Once defendant’s daughter exited the dwelling, the officers knew from defendant’s wife that no one else was in the dwelling except defendant. None of the officers at the scene witnessed anything that would lead them to suspect that there was another person in the residence. The “mere possibility” that a person could be inside the premises did not justify the search … . We also note that there was no indication that defendant had shot or injured anyone prior to the officers’ arrival at his residence, and at no time had defendant threatened the police or anyone else at the residence. Under the circumstances, there was no legitimate reason for the police not to apply for a search warrant before entering the house. People v Swank, 2024 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A “protective sweep” of a residence that the police know to be vacant amounts to a warrantless search in the absence of exigent circumstances.

 

, ,

SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined SMI, the owner of a solid waste management facility, did not have standing to challenge, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a local law allowing the construction of a solid waste management facility in the Town of Seneca Falls. SMI’s claim it would suffer economic loss if the new facility is constructed was not enough to confer standing:

Those seeking to raise a SEQRA challenge must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

… Although “[a] property owner in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of [an agency] determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity” … , the “status of neighbor does not . . . automatically provide the entitlement . . . to judicial review in every instance” … . The petitioner must also establish “that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute” … .

Here, SMI failed to establish, or even allege, that it had suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. SMI submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its managing director, who averred only that SMI would suffer economic injuries if the local law was not annulled. Although SMI, as the owner of a solid waste management facility, is entitled to a presumption that it would, in fact, suffer such economic harm, it failed to establish that it has standing to raise a SEQRA challenge because economic injury does not fall within the zone of interest SEQRA seeks to protect … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2024 NY Slip Op 06435, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing, a party bringing a SEQRA challenge must demonstrate an environmental injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large. Here no environmental injury was alleged. Therefore standing was not demonstrated.

 

, ,

A HANDGUN USED AS BLUDGEON IS A “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A BURGLARY FIRST DEGREE COUNT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE CHARGE TO BURGLARY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and reinstating the reduced count, determined the handgun with which the victim was allegedly struck was a “dangerous instrument” despite the fact it had not been fired. County Court had reduced the charge from Burglary first to Burglary second on the ground the handgun had not been shown to be a “dangerous instrument:”

The People were required to present competent evidence to the grand jury demonstrating that defendant or another participant in the crime used, or threatened the immediate use of, a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). A dangerous instrument is defined as “any instrument, article or substance . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (§ 10.00 [13]).

At the grand jury hearing, the victim testified that three men entered her apartment and the first man who walked in had a gun. She further testified that, at one point, “the guy with the gun” became “more upset” and hit her “upside the head” with the gun.

It is well established that “a ‘gun [that is] used as a bludgeon’ is a dangerous instrument” … because it ” ‘is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury’ ” … . Here, County Court ruled that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish that the item used by defendant or another participant in the crime was a dangerous instrument because it was not discharged during the incident and there was no evidence that the item was recovered or tested. That was error. We agree with the People that they were not required to submit evidence that the item described by the victim as a gun was an operable or loaded firearm in order to meet the dangerous instrument element of the crime … . We further agree with the People that they were not required to prove that the victim suffered an injury but, rather, needed only to establish that “under the circumstances in which [the instrument, article, or substance was] used . . . or threatened to be used, [it was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13] …). It is reasonable for a grand jury to infer that hitting the victim on the side of the victim’s head with a gun could cause serious physical injury. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that defendant or another participant in the crime used a dangerous instrument … . People v Delee, 2024 NY Slip Op 06491, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A handgun used as a bludgeon is a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of the Penal Law and the Burglary First Degree statute. The People need not show the handgun was operable or that the victim suffered a serious injury.

 

, ,

ON THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL, THE TRIAL COURT’S VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE WAS REVERSED; THE NEW EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE SHOOTER, DEFENDANT WAS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE SHOOTER; AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY CONSIDER THE TRIAL COURT’S GROUNDS FOR ITS RULINGS, OR RULINGS ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and denying the motion to vacate the criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined new evidence which indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the machine gun to the shooter (Scott)  would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict. Defendant would have been convicted as an accomplice. In rejecting an argument on appeal that was not part of the ruling below, the Fourth Department explained that its appellate jurisdiction is limited to grounds relied on by the trial court which were adverse to the appellant:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence in question is not “of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10 [1] [g] …). Scott’s deposition testimony establishes that defendant possessed the loaded machine gun, provided it to Scott, transported Scott to the vicinity of the crime, and had a motive to harm the victims because his family had “beef” with theirs, thus providing sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty as an accomplice to the weapons possession of which he was convicted … . ” ‘[W]hether one is the actual perpetrator of the offense or an accomplice is, with respect to criminal liability for the offense, irrelevant’ ” … .

Defendant requests that we affirm on the ground, which he asserted in the court below, that consideration of the new evidence in light of a theory of accessorial liability requires an impermissible amendment to the indictment. We agree with the People that we have no authority to affirm on that basis … .

Under CPL 470.15 (1), “[u]pon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” * * * The Appellate Division engages in “the type of appellate overreaching prohibited by CPL 470.15 (1)” when it “renders a decision on grounds explicitly different from those of the trial court, or on grounds that were clearly resolved in [the appellant’s] favor” … .

Here, the court determined that “the accessorial liability theory, if presented at a new trial, would not constitute an impermissible amendment to the indictment in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights,” clearly resolving that issue in the People’s favor.  People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 06473, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: New evidence indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the weapon to the shooter with the requisite intent. Because the new evidence would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon charge, defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should have been denied.

Practice Point: An intermediate appellate court can only consider grounds for rulings relied on by the trial court or rulings adverse to the appellant.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE CHARGES RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE MURDERS, COMMITTED NEARLY TWO YEARS APART, WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JURY WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY CONSIDERING SEPARATELY THE PROOF FOR EACH OFFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s murder convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two comprehensive dissenting opinions, determined the denial of defendant’s motion to sever the charges relating to two separate murders, committed nearly two years apart, was not error:

The first victim was the defendant’s roommate, who was found dead in their shared apartment in 2013 after a fire that occurred under circumstances that later raised questions about her cause of death. The second victim was a woman whom defendant had hired to go on a date with him in December 2014; her body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. The defendant was arrested in 2017 … . * * *

Where counts have been joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (c), the CPL provides that the trial court has discretion to sever them if doing so would be “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown” (id. 200.20 [3]). This provision has its origins in a 1936 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure that allowed joinder of “two or more acts or transactions constituting crimes of the same or a similar character which are neither connected together nor parts of a common scheme or plan” … .

The statute specifies two situations that establish good cause: first, where there is “[s]ubstantially more proof on one or more such joinable offenses than on others and there is a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it relates to each offense”; and second, where there is “[a] convincing showing that a defendant has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other, which satisfies the court that the risk of prejudice is substantial” … . The statute expressly notes that good cause is not limited to these grounds … , and we have explained that “a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice” must be protected when offenses are joined for trial … . …

… The defendant asserts that “the jury was incapable of considering the proof separately with respect to each offense” because the proof of each crime was “markedly different” and “dissimilar.” … [But] the key question is whether it would be difficult for the jury to consider separately the proof for each offense … . People v Mero, 2024 NY Slip Op 06385, CtApp 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion, especially the extensive dissents, for a comprehensive discussion of the issues raised by trying a defendant for two unrelated murders, separated by years, in a single trial.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CROSSING THE FOG LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY THREE TIMES IN SECONDS CONSTITUTED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined there was probable cause for the traffic stop which resulted in a DWI conviction. Defendant’s car crossed the fog line on the right side of the roadway three times within seconds:

When a driver swerves over the fog line repeatedly, in quick succession, they have failed to “drive[ ] as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane” in violation of VTL § 1128 (a) (see e.g. Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 33 NY3d 926, 928 [2019] [testimony that vehicle “ma(de) an erratic movement off the right side of the road, crossing the fog line and moving off the shoulder with the vehicle’s right front tire” provided substantial evidence that stop was lawful under VTL § 1128 (a)]; People v Tandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1177, 1178 [2d Dept 2010]; People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2d Dept 2006]; cf. People v Davis, 58 AD3d 896, 898 [3d Dept 2009] [police officer’s testimony that driver had made “brief contacts with the fog line,” but not that driver was, for example, “weaving, driving erratically or even that he drove onto the shoulder” was insufficient to support traffic stop under VTL § 1128 (a)]). On these facts, the troopers’ observations, which were credited by the suppression court, established probable cause for the traffic stop. Therefore, the court properly denied the motion to suppress. People v Rufus, 2024 NY Slip Op 06384, CtApp 12-19-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s crossing the fog line on the right side of the highway three times in seconds violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constituted probable cause for the traffic stop.

 

, ,

IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, THE JUVENILE’S BEHAVIOR—LOOKING AT THE UNDERCOVER VEHICLE AND TURNING HIS BICYCLE AROUND—DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING THE STREET STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court’s finding there was reasonable suspicion justifying the street stop of the juvenile, determined the officers’ observation of the juvenile’s “look[ing] in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal[ing], duck[ing], turn[ing] the bicycle around and rid[ing] in the opposite direction” was not sufficient. The police had been alerted to a gunshot in the area. A handgun was retrieved from the juvenile:

… [T]he totality of the circumstances did not support Family Court’s finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and his detention was unlawful because appellant’s “equivocal or innocuous behavior” was “susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation” … . Police, in two unmarked vehicles, while canvassing the area in response to a “Shotspotter” sensor report of shots fired, observed appellant riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. An officer observed appellant look in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal, duck, turn the bicycle around and ride in the opposite direction. The officer found appellant’s actions suspicious, exited the vehicle, approached appellant, ordered him to stop, grabbed him by both wrists and pushed him against the wall. While appellant was detained another officer observed a bulge in appellant’s pocket, squeezed the pocket area and retrieved a firearm.

Although an officer observed an L-shaped object in appellant’s pocket during the detention, there is no evidence or any reasonable inference that the officer “was in a position to view the contraband absent the unlawful detention” … . Matter of W.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 06426, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Here the police were canvassing the area after a report of a gunshot. They stopped the juvenile after observing him look at their undercover vehicle and turn his bicycle around. A handgun was retrieved during the stop. The First Department held the observations did not provide the police with “reasonable suspicion” and the street stop was therefore not justified.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant police officer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by defendant’s police van when plaintiff stepped into the road from between two parked cars. Defendant police office was responding to an “assault in progress” when plaintiff was struck:

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, by submitting evidence that he was responding to a radio call about an “assault in progress” at the time of the accident … . The police officer therefore was privileged to drive in the wrong direction on the roadway … , and can be found liable only if he operated the vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … .

Defendants demonstrated that the officer did not act with reckless disregard based on his testimony that he entered the eastbound lane after ascertaining that there was no traffic, turned on the siren and lights, and was unable to avoid striking plaintiff when she stepped out in front of the police van, despite hitting the brakes hard … . Yuet C. Chiu-Yu v Chin, 2024 NY Slip Op 06273, First Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: Defendant police officer was responding to an “assault in progress” and testified he had activated his siren and lights and had checked for pedestrians prior to striking plaintiff as she stepped into the road from between parked cars. The officer testified he braked hard but could not avoid striking plaintiff. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the officer demonstrated he did not operate his vehicle in “reckless disregard” for the safety of others.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY; THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been summarily denied, and (2) the search warrant did not provide probable cause for the search of defendant’s cell phones:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

While we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made in issuing the initial search warrant, we find the original affidavit did not establish the probable cause required to issue a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones. … [T]he warrant was supported by [investigator] Bruno’s affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 06239, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge should conduct a colloquy to determine whether defendant is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.​

Practice Point: The assertion in an affidavit that defendant’s cell phones “may” contain evidence of a drug offense does not provide probable cause for the search of the cell phones.

 

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