You are here: / Evidence
,

Not Enough Evidence Before Family Court to Make Custody Determination

In remitting the matter to Family Court for a hearing in a custody proceeding with controverted allegations, the Second Department noted that, although a hearing is not always required, there was not enough evidence before the court for an informed determination in this case:

” [A]s a general rule, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody based upon controverted allegations without the benefit of a full hearing'”…. ” Since the court has an obligation to make an objective and independent evaluation of the circumstances, a custody determination should be made only after a full and fair hearing at which the record is fully developed'”…. However, ” it is not necessary to conduct such a hearing where the court already possesses sufficient relevant information to render an informed determination in the child’s best interest'” … .Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court lacked sufficient information to render an informed determination as to the best interests of the subject children … . Matter of Labella v Murray, 2013 NY Slip Op 05076, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Denial of Inmate’s Request for Evidence and Failure to Include Confidential Testimony Required Annulment

In annulling the disciplinary determination, the Third Department noted the Hearing Officer’s failure to explain the denial of the inmate’s request for evidence and failure to include confidential testimony which was relied upon:

Inasmuch as the record before us fails to include any  explanation for the denial of the requested evidence, which may have prejudiced his defense, and is incomplete in that it does not include the confidential testimony taken and relied upon by the Hearing Officer in reaching the determination, we  are unable to undertake meaningful review… .  Matter of Gallagher, 514650, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

The First Department explained the elements of the offense of tampering with physical evidence as follows:

…[A] person is guilty of the completed crime of tampering with physical evidence when, “[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment” (Penal Law 215.45[2]).

The offense of tampering does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, but only that a defendant perform an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence…. Regardless of whether the defendant is successful in suppressing the evidence, once an act of concealment is completed with the requisite mens rea, the offense of tampering has been committed.  People v Eaglesgrave, 2013 NY Slip Op 05001, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal

In an action based on the allegation a bus was traveling too close to the curb when it struck plaintiff, the First Department (over a dissent) determined testimony that bus drivers’ operating criteria “are much higher than anyone else’s, so I would look at the accident by our standards a lot different from anyone else” required a new trial on liability:

The admission of testimony that holds a defendant to a higher standard of care than required by common law is clearly erroneous…. Moreover, the admitted testimony cannot be considered harmless error because it concerns the ultimate issue to be decided and corroborates unsupported theories of liability proffered by plaintiff’s expert, thereby lending them an unwarranted air of authority. It is well settled that “the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts”…. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve — as a question of fact — whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff…. As this Court has noted numerous times, “Where the offered proof intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the court to render a ruling on a legal issue, the attempt by a plaintiff to arrogate to himself a judicial function under the guise of expert testimony will be rejected”….  Williams v NYC Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04975, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, MATTER SENT BACK FOR REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT’S STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE ISSUING MAGISTRATE (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the motion court should have looked at the transcript of the confidential informant’s statements before the magistrate before ruling on whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The application and affidavit did not demonstrate the reliability of the informant:

… Supreme Court erred by failing to examine the transcript of the confidential informant’s testimony before the magistrate to determine whether the search warrant was issued upon probable cause and that the formal requirements of CPL 690.40 (1) had been substantially complied with … . …

The search warrant and supporting affidavit do not by themselves establish probable cause in this case … . A warrant application containing information provided by a confidential informant must demonstrate “the veracity or reliability of the source of the information” … . There are no “factual averments” in the police officer’s affidavit that could have afforded the magistrate a basis for determining the reliability of the confidential informant … . The affidavit does not state that the informant had a proven “track record” of supplying reliable information in the past … , and it is not evident that the informant was under oath when information was given to the officer … .

Nor may the reliability of the confidential informant be inferred solely from the statement, set forth in the affidavit, that the informant bought cocaine from defendant. While admissions against penal interest may be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause … , “[s]uch admissions are not guarantees of truthfulness and they should be accepted only after careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case indicates that there exists a basis for finding reliability” … . People v Chisholm, 2013 NY Slip Op 04841 [21 NY3d 990], CtApp 6-27-13

SUPPRESSION

, ,

DOCTOR INTENTIONALLY LEFT A GUIDE WIRE USED DURING SURGERY INSIDE PLAINTIFF’S BODY WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND IT, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the medical malpractice action was properly dismissed after plaintiff’s proof was put in. Defendant doctor intentionally left a guide wire (used during a surgical procedure) inside plaintiff’s body after he was unable to locate it. The guide wire was later removed with the aid of a special x-ray machine. The “foreign object” was not left plaintiff’s body unintentionally, which is a requirement of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. And plaintiff was unable to show that it was the defendant doctor, and not someone else involved in the surgery, who exercised control over the guide wire:

Plaintiff Marguerite James commenced this medical malpractice action against defendants Dr. David Wormuth and his practice … after he failed to remove a localization guide wire during a biopsy of an area on plaintiff’s lung. On this appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the dismissal of her amended complaint, we affirm.

In October 2004, a guide wire inserted into the plaintiff to assist with a biopsy of an area in her lung dislodged. Defendant Dr. Wormuth proceeded with the biopsy, but was unable to locate the dislodged wire. After an unsuccessful 20-minute manual search for the wire, defendant determined that it was better for the plaintiff to leave the wire and end the surgical procedure, rather than to extend the amount of time she was in surgery for him to continue searching for the wire. Defendant informed plaintiff after the surgery that he could not find the wire, and that he had determined that it was better to leave it rather than continue the search procedure.

Plaintiff subsequently returned to defendant complaining of pain she attributed to the lodged wire, and which she said was so significant that it disrupted her ability to work. Approximately two months after the first procedure, defendant performed a second operation. In that procedure, he successfully … located and removed the wire with the use of a special X-ray machine known as a C-arm. * * *

To the extent counsel argued that res ipsa loquitur applies because the wire could only have dislodged due to the doctor’s negligence, plaintiff failed to establish the elements of res ipsa, specifically that Dr. Wormuth had exclusive control … . Dr. Wormuth testified that there were other medical personnel involved in the process of inserting the wire and transporting the plaintiff prior to the doctor’s discovery that the wire had dislodged. Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to the contrary. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel appears to have … believed that the control element was satisfied because the doctor had control over the operation. Whether the doctor was in control of the operation does not address the question of whether he was in exclusive control of the instrumentality, because several other individuals participated to an extent in the medical procedure. Given that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the doctor had exclusive control of the wire, or sufficient proof that “eliminate[s] within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence,” the control element clearly has not been satisfied … . James v Wormuth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04839 [21 NY3d 540] CtApp 6-27-13

 

, , ,

STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the evidence obtained about a state employee’s movements by placing a GPS device on the employee’s car should have been suppressed in the Labor Department’s hearing (after which the employee was terminated). The Court of Appeals found that the use of the GPS device did not require a warrant, but the search in this case was unreasonable in scope:

The State of New York, suspecting that one of its employees was submitting false time reports, attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the employee’s car. Under People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433 [2009]) and United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]), the State’s action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. We hold that the search did not require a warrant, but that on the facts of this case it was unreasonable. * * *

While the search did not require a warrant, it did not comply with either the State or Federal Constitution unless it was a reasonable search. We conclude that the State has failed to demonstrate that this search was reasonable. * * *

Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable. That conclusion concededly requires suppression of the GPS evidence here; the State has disclaimed any reliance on the balancing test that we use when deciding whether to invoke the suppression remedy in administrative proceedings .. . . Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor,
2013 NY Slip Op 04838 [21 NY3d 515], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Denial of Request to Take Child’s Testimony Outside Parents’ Presence Was Abuse of Discretion

The Third Department noted that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the request for a Lincoln hearing in a custody proceeding (allowing a child to testify outside the parties’ presence):

Although not an issue directly raised on appeal, the attorney for the child and the father both requested that Family Court hold a Lincoln hearing … rather than require the child to testify in open court.  Unfortunately, this request was denied and, after the mother refused to consent to the child testifying outside of the parties’ presence, the child had to testify under oath in front of both parents. While we recognize that Family Court has the discretion to decide whether a Lincoln hearing is appropriate…, it was clearly an abuse of discretion for the court to put the child in this awkward position… . We again emphasize that “‘a child . . . should not be placed in the position of having [his or her] relationship with either parent further jeopardized by having to publicly relate [his or her] difficulties with them'” when explaining the reasons for his or her preference…. Given the circumstances of this case and the fact that – at her age [14]– her preference would  be  entitled to great weight, the record indicates that a Lincoln hearing would have limited the risk of harm and “would have been far more informative and worthwhile than . . . an examination of the child under oath in open court”… . Matter of Casarotti v Casarotti, 515270, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

 

,

Events Before Last Custody Order Could Be Considered re: “Best Interests of Child” Even Though Only Post-Custody-Order Events Can Be Considered re: “Change of Circumstances”

In upholding Family Court’s custody ruling, the Third Department noted that events which occurred before the last custody order could be considered with respect to the best interests of the child:”

Family Court did not err in considering evidence of events that occurred before the entry of the prior custody order. Although  the inquiry as to whether  a substantial change  in circumstances has occurred should be limited to occurrences since the date of the prior custody order…, a best interests inquiry is broader and may include other facts that give the court a view of the totality of the circumstances and family dynamics, including proof that relates to either party’s fitness as a parent….  As less weight  is afforded to a stipulated order, admission of evidence concerning previous behavior or events is especially proper where no prior plenary hearing has been held and the prior order was issued on consent…. Here, Family Court did not abuse  its broad  discretion in determining the scope of the proof….  Matter of  Smith…, 513811, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

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