You are here: / Evidence
,

Arrest Based on Out of State Warrant Not Authorized​

In reversing the denial of suppression, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment, the Second Department explained that the arrest based on out of state warrant (for a violation of probation) was not authorized.  A local criminal court warrant was required:

The detective had no authority to arrest the defendant based on his information that there was an out-of-state violation of probation warrant, as the detective did not obtain a warrant from a local criminal court pursuant to CPL 570.32. While CPL 570.34 provides that a police officer may also arrest a person in this State without a warrant “upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of another state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”…, a violation of probation is not a “crime” … . People v Miranda-Hernandez, 2013 NY Slip Op 03346, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESS

, ,

Conflicting Expert Opinions, One of Which Was “Conclusory” with Respect to Proximate Cause, Raised Question of Fact

The Second Department reversed the dismissal of medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action because a question of fact about whether there was a deviation from the standard of care by a hospital employee was raised by conflicting expert opinions, one of which was “conclusory” on the issue of proximate cause:

Although, generally, a hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician, concurrent liability will be imposed where, inter alia, a hospital’s employees commit independent acts of negligence …. Here, Winthrop [the hospital] satisfied its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that Noble, its employee, did not commit any independent acts that deviated from the standard of care while attending to the decedent in the post-operative recovery area …. However, Winthrop failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to the issue of proximate cause, as the opinion rendered by its expert on that issue was conclusory … Therefore, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact only as to whether there was a deviation from the standard of care …. The plaintiff did so through the affidavit of her expert, who opined that Noble deviated from the standard of care by, inter alia, failing to recognize the signs of a complication and timely report those signs to Wong [the decedent’s private attending physician]. In light of the conflicting opinions of the parties’ experts, summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action insofar as asserted against Winthrop should have been denied …. Rosenstack v Wong, 2013 NY Slip Op 03316, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 

The Second Department explained that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur makes out a prima facie case of negligence but the jury is not required to draw the permissible inference of negligence, even where the defendant offers no proof:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident, upon a plaintiff’s showing that the event is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence and was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, without any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff …. “The rule has the effect of creating a prima facie case of negligence sufficient for submission to the jury, and the jury may-but is not required to-draw the permissible inference” …. “[T]he use of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof” …. In a res ipsa loquitur case, the jury has great latitude; even when the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and the defendant has offered no proof, the jury nonetheless is entitled to find for the defendant …, subject, of course, to appellate review. Nikollbibaj v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03306, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Motion to Set Aside Convictions Based On Newly Discovered Evidence Should Have Been Granted

The Fourth Department determined the trial court should have set aside defendant’s criminal contempt convictions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.30(3) based upon newly discovered evidence (phone records calling into question complainant’s trial testimony).  The Fourth Department wrote:

To set aside a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3), a defendant must prove that “there is newly discovered evidence (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and, (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence”….  People v Madison, KA 11-00313, 389, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​

Over two dissents, the Fourth Department reversed the grant of suppression by County Court.  The questioning of the defendant was instigated by the defendant’s staring at the officer as the officer was in his vehicle and the defendant was riding a bicycle.  The defendant ran his bicycle into a porch, fell and ran up the steps. At that point the officer approached him and asked him for identification.  The defendant kept putting his hand in his pocket after the officer asked him not to. The officer grabbed the defendant’s hand as defendant reached into his pocket.  As he did so, the officer touched an object he believed to be a handgun and he reached into the pocket and removed it.  The majority felt the officer was justified in grabbing the defendant’s hand and retrieving the object to protect his safety.  The dissenters felt the information available to the officer did not amount to reasonable suspicion of criminality such that a forcible stop and frisk was justified. People v Sims, KA 12-01247, 324, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SEARCH, STREET STOP

, ,

Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 

The Fourth Department (over two dissents) reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the defense was precluded from calling a witness.  The prosecution’s theory was that the defendant committed robbery, assault and burglary against the victim in retaliation for the victim’s informing the police defendant was growing marijuana in his house. It was anticipated the witness the defense was not allowed to call would testify that defendant accused him (the witness) of being the informant but did not assault or threaten him.  The Fourth Department explained:

It is well settled that “a defendant’s ‘right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense . . . is a fundamental element of due process of law’ ” …In fact, “[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his [or her] own defense” …Thus, the testimony of a defense witness should not be prospectively excluded unless the offer of such proof is palpably in bad faith …. Instead, courts upon proper objection should “rule on the admissibility of the evidence offered” …. Here, the People do not suggest that the testimony of the proposed witness was offered in bad faith, and the court did not make such a finding at trial. Indeed, there is no basis in the record for concluding that the offer of proof was palpably in bad faith. The court therefore should have allowed the proposed witness to testify, whereupon the prosecutor could object to any testimony she deemed inadmissible or improper.  People v Arena, KA 12-01632, 179, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE

,

Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof In Support of Name-Change Petition

In this case the Fourth Department determined the court could not require petitioner, a parolee, to provide psychological and medical proof in support of a petition for a name change.  The Fourth Department wrote:

 …[W]e agree with petitioner that the court erred in requiring him to provide psychological and medical proof in support of the amended petition; such proof is irrelevant when the petitioner seeks only to assume a different name, “not a declaration of a gender ‘change[] from male to female’ ” …. Here, petitioner has not requested a declaration regarding gender, but by the amended petition has asked the court “only to sanction legally petitioner’s desire for a change of name, after satisfying itself that petitioner has no fraudulent purpose for doing so and that no other person’s rights are interfered with thereby” ….  Matter of Anonymous, CA 12-02056, 426, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators

In a lead-paint injury case, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted a motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff’s mental or physical condition unless plaintiff provided defendant with so-called “speaking authorizations” allowing defendant to communicate with non-party healthcare providers about the plaintiff’s injuries.  However, the Fourth Department did not agree with Supreme Court’s grant of the same motion with respect to non-party educators (two justices dissented on that issue):

In Arons v Jutkowitz …, the Court of Appeals provided the framework for conducting discovery with regard to nonparty healthcare providers, which includes the use of speaking authorizations. Arons, however, does not authorize defendant to obtain speaking authorizations for plaintiff’s educators. We decline to extend Arons to require production of speaking authorizations to anyone other than nonparty healthcare providers. The Arons decision is narrow in scope and provides a framework as to how parties must procedurally comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 when attempting to speak with an adverse party’s treating physician. Defendant made no showing that the discovery devices available under the CPLR and the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts were inadequate to obtain the necessary discovery. McCarter v Woods, CA 12-00678, 1117, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Okay to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Medical Reports Linking Injury to Lead Paint or Be Precluded from Introducing Such Evidence

In a lead-paint injury action, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce medical reports linking the injuries to lead and to provide an amended bill of particulars to reflect those injuries. In the alternative the defendants moved to preclude proof of plaintiff’s injuries in the absence of such medical reports.  Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and the Fourth Department affirmed.  In addition, the Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court was not required to take judicial notice of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 USC 4851), which provides a private right of action for lead-related damages, because plaintiff was not “relying” on the statute.  Hamilton v Miller…, CA 12-01574, 355, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Statements Made by Defendant During First 15 Hours of a 60-Hour Interrogation Not Coerced

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly ruled that the defendant’s statements during the first 15 hours of a 60-hour interrogation need not be suppressed as the product of coercion.  People v Collins, KA 09-00932, 1367, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

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