You are here: / Evidence
, ,

Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​

In finding defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to sell was against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department (with a dissent) wrote:

…[T]he amount of cocaine recovered from the defendant was relatively small and not inconsistent with personal use. Indeed, convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance involving intent to sell generally stem from situations where a significantly greater quantity of drugs is recovered from the defendant’s person…. Even more important, the defendant was found to be in possession of no drug paraphernalia or weapons, and he had only $20 in cash … .Although there was testimony that street drug sales often involve bags of drugs costing $20 each, the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a single $20 bill cannot be considered indicative of an intent to sell.  People v McFadden, 2013 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept, 5-22-12

 

,

Children’s Hearsay Alleging Abuse by Father Was Not Corroborated; Change in Custody Should Not Have Been Granted

In reversing Family Court’s grant of the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody, the Third Department determined the children’s hearsay statements alleging abuse by the father was not corroborated, and therefore could not form the basis of a modification of custody:

Inasmuch as Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi) is applicable to custody proceedings based upon allegations of abuse, the children’s out-of-court statements are excepted from the hearsay rule, but must be corroborated …. *  *  * Because the  children’s out-of-court statements were not corroborated, Family Court’s finding of a change in circumstances lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record.  Matter of Zukowski v Zukowski, 514074, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

 

,

Gang Affiliation and Prior Drug Offenses Admissible Under Molineux in Murder Case/Motion to Suppress Statement Made When Questioning Continued After Defendant Stated He Did Not Want to Answer Any More Questions Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation and uncharged drug offenses were admissible in defendant’s murder trial under Molineux.  In addition, the Third Department determined defendant’s statements made after he said he didn’t want to answer any more questions should have been suppressed.  [The Third Department rejected the People’s argument that the suppression issue was decided in a prior prosecution and the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply.] With respect to the Molineux and “right to remain silent” issues, the Court wrote:

“Generally speaking, evidence of uncharged  crimes or prior bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions – motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity – or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provide[s] necessary background or complete[s] a witness’s narrative” … . Here, defendant’s drug-related activities and purported gang membership provided necessary background information, explained how [the other parties] and defendant knew one another (as well as why defendant’s acquaintances went along with his plan to rob the weed spot[where the murder took place]) and, viewed in the context of the activities that occurred prior to the shooting, established both defendant’s awareness of the weed spot and a motive for the shooting; thus, such “evidence was highly probative of several relevant and material issues at trial and genuinely interwoven with the facts surrounding the shooting” … .

The case law makes clear that “[a] defendant’s invocation of the right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored” … once the right is asserted in an “unequivocal and unqualified” fashion … Whether  a defendant’s  request in this regard is “unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to  the  circumstances surrounding  the  request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” … .  People v Johnson, 104081, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

 

,

Existence of Brady Material Concerning Law Suit Against Interrogating Officer for Eliciting a False Confession Required Hearing on Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction

The defendant claimed that his confession was involuntary because he was physically abused by the interrogating officer (O’Leary). After his conviction for depraved indifference murder the defendant brought a motion to vacate the conviction on the ground that the interrogating officer had been sued for allegedly extracting a false confession and the prosecution did not provide that “Brady” material to him.  In reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate and remitting the matter for a hearing, the Second Department wrote an exhaustive overview of the law concerning “Brady” material in New York.  Although rather long, the court’s explanation is provided here because of its clarity:

A defendant is entitled, under the state and federal constitutions, “to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession material to guilt or punishment”)…. Indeed, the law requires that Brady material be produced whether or not the defendant requests any such evidence …. To establish a Brady violation, the “evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued” because the evidence was material … .

Here, the allegedly suppressed evidence clearly fell within the ambit of the prosecutor’s Brady obligation because it constituted impeachment evidence…. Moreover, the People’s failure to disclose the existence of the civil action may have denied the defendant the opportunity to conduct an investigation leading to additional exculpatory or impeaching evidence , for instance, providing a basis for the disclosure of police personnel records otherwise unavailable … .

“In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” ….”Absent a specific request by defendant for the document, materiality can only be demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable probability’ that it would have changed the outcome of the proceedings” …. Here, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant made a specific request for the allegedly suppressed information. Nevertheless, we find that there was a “reasonable probability” that disclosure of the lawsuit would have changed the outcome of the defendant’s trial. The primary evidence at trial establishing the defendant’s identity as the murderer was his confession. The other evidence tying him to the crime was weak, consisting of testimony that he was seen with the victim shortly before she disappeared. Since the credibility of the detectives who obtained the defendant’s confession was of central importance in the case, the nondisclosure was material … .

Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to determine whether the District Attorney’s office had sufficient knowledge of the suit against O’Leary so as to trigger its obligations under Brady. Evidence subject to disclosure under Brady includes evidence “known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor”…, and, therefore, “the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in th[is] case, including the police” … ;This rule is based upon the principle that “[t]he government cannot with its right hand say it has nothing while its left hand holds what is of value” …. Here, the attorney’s affirmation submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion, which was based only on a review of files, is insufficient to establish that no one to whom the obligation under Brady extended, other than perhaps O’Leary himself …, had knowledge of the civil action at any time during which the prosecution’s Brady obligation was ongoing.   People v Garrett, 2013 NY Slip Op 03498, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

,

Plaintiff Unable to Demonstrate Freedom from Comparative Negligence as a Matter of Law; Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Automobile Accident Case Denied

In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability in an automobile-accident case, the Second Department explained the plaintiff failed to demonstrate freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law:

“There can be more than one proximate cause [of an accident] and, thus, the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” …. While an operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield…, the operator traveling with the right-of-way still has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles…. The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the trier of fact … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence eliminating a triable issue of fact as to whether she contributed to the happening of the accident…. Since the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, her motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s papers in opposition… .  Regans v Baratta, 2013 NY Slip Op 03468, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Passenger in Car of Which Plaintiff Lost Control in Snowy Conditions Entitled to Summary Judgment

In finding Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment in favor of the passenger-plaintiff, who was injured when the driver-defendant lost control of his car and struck a fence, the Second Department wrote:

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that this was a one-car accident which occurred when Rajput [defendant] lost control of the vehicle he was driving…. “An innocent passenger . . . who, in support of [his or] her motion for summary judgment, submits evidence that the accident resulted from the driver losing control of the vehicle, shifts the burden to the driver to come forward with an exculpatory explanation” ….
In opposition, the defendants failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Since Rajput acknowledged in his affidavit that it was snowing heavily at the time of his accident, and that he was aware of wet and icy road conditions, the emergency doctrine is inapplicable …. Furthermore, the affidavit, which failed to specify at what speed Rajput was actually driving before his vehicle skidded, was insufficient to establish that he was driving with reasonable care, and thus raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the skid was unavoidable … .  Mughal v Rajput, 2013 NY Slip Op 03466, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Pre-Deposition Motion to Dismiss in Rear-End Collision Case Not Premature

In reversing the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a rear-end collision case, the Second Department determined the pre-deposition motion for summary judgment should not have been dismissed as premature:

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs’ motion was premature. A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant (see CPLR 3212[f]; … .The defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs’ motion was premature because the plaintiffs had not yet been deposed at the time the plaintiffs’ motion was filed did not establish what information the defendant hoped to discover at the plaintiffs’ depositions that would relieve him of liability in this case. “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” … .  Cajas-Romero v Ward, 2013 NY Slip Op 03446, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Proof of Regular Cleaning Negated Constructive Notice Allegation​

In determining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been granted, the Second Department explained defendant had met its burden on the issue of (the absence of) constructive notice by proof of regular weekly cleaning:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiff slipped, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition… . ” To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'”… .  A defendant’s submission of evidence of its general cleaning practices is generally insufficient to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice … . Here, however, the defendant submitted an affidavit from its superintendent indicating that each and every Monday, he would mop the entire building, including the stairwell where the plaintiff allegedly fell, and that this mopping would always occur between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. This affidavit was specific enough to satisfy the defendant’s initial burden. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Armijos v Vrettos Realty Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03443, 2nd Dept,. 5-15-13

 

 

, , ,

Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required Vacation of Award

The exclusion of petitioner from an administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to an alleged assault by petitioner required vacation of the arbitrator’s award.  The First Department wrote:

Petitioner’s exclusion from the administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to her alleged hitting of a student—the student himself—violated her constitutional right to confront the witnesses against her …. Nothing in the record indicates that a compelling competing interest warranted the exclusion. There is no finding that petitioner’s presence would cause trauma to the student or substantially interfere with his ability to testify. Indeed, the record contains no indication at all of the basis for the exclusion. Petitioner contends that in addition to her constitutional right she had an absolute right to confront witnesses under Education Law § 3020-a. However … there is no such absolute right under § 3020-a… .  Matter of Stergiou v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 03432, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

, , ,

Assumption of Duty to Maintain Sidewalk; No Expert Notice Needed for Treating Physician

In reversing a judgment after a jury trial in a slip and fall case, the First Department discussed several issues that came up in the trial, including the denial of a missing witness charge with respect to one of the defense doctors, a translation problem raised by the translator (which may have given the jury the misimpression plaintiff was confused about an important issue), the assumption by the defendant Department of Education (DOE) of a duty to make the sidewalk outside a school (where plaintiff fell) safe, and the trial court’s ruling that one of plaintiff’s treating physicians could not testify because no “expert witness” notice was provided.  In addressing the school’s assumption of a duty with respect to the condition of the sidewalk and the exclusion of plaintiff’s treating physician, the First Department wrote:

The DOE argues on appeal that the action should have been dismissed as against it because it did not own the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. New York City Charter § 521(a) provides that “title to all property … acquired for school or educational purpose … shall be vested in the city, but under the care and control of the board of education for the purposes of public education, recreation and other public uses.” Education Law § 2554(4) affirmatively charges the DOE with responsibility for “the care, custody, control and safekeeping of all school property or other property of the city used for educational, social or recreational work.” ……[W]here there was evidence that the DOE affirmatively undertook the duty to maintain the sidewalk, the court was well within its discretion in submitting the question of the DOE’s negligence to the jury ….

CPLR 3101(d)(1) provides that, upon request, parties must identify those expected to be called as experts and “disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify … and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” However, the failure to serve a CPLR 3101(d) notice with regard to a treating physician, such as Dr. Geller, is not grounds for preclusion of the physician’s expert testimony as to causation where there has been disclosure of the physician’s records and reports, pursuant to CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 … .  Hamer v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 03431, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

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