You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the judge in this DWI prosecution should not have granted the People’s motion to reargue the suppression motion. The court had initially granted defendant’s motion to suppress because the People failed to prove U-turns made by the defendant were illegal. When the suppression motion was reargued, the People presented evidence the U-turns were, in fact, illegal and the court denied suppression:

… [I]f the People have had a full and fair opportunity to oppose suppression, and the suppression court has issued a ruling on the merits, the People may not have an additional “opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position” … . Under the circumstances of this case, where the People were unprepared for the suppression hearing and sought to reargue the legal issue to remedy their lack of preparedness, the same principle should apply.

At a suppression hearing, the People bear the burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Here, the court granted defendant’s motion for suppression because the People failed to demonstrate that defendant’s U-turns were illegal and therefore that the stop was lawful. Neither the Assistant District Attorney nor the arresting officer could identify any traffic law provision violated by defendant. Moreover, the People did not request a recess or adjournment to determine the statutory basis for the stop, nor did they request permission to furnish a post-hearing submission to identify any relevant provision of law. Instead, the People returned a month after the court granted suppression, offering a different legal theory that they had not raised at the original suppression hearing. On that new legal theory, the court changed course and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Of course, “[b]efore sentence is imposed, trial courts in criminal cases have the general inherent authority to correct their own mistakes” … , which may include granting leave to reargue. Although the People may be permitted to reargue the legal or factual issues of the suppression proceedings, allowing the suppression court to grant the People’s motion to reargue in these circumstances would run afoul of our “full and fair opportunity” principle and the policies of finality and judicial efficiency underlying it. People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 06238, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Pont: As a general rule, the People should have only one chance to demonstrate the legality of a traffic stop in the context of a suppression hearing. Once a suppression motion is granted, the People should not be allowed to reopen the hearing to present evidence which could have been presented the first time around.

 

, ,

THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STREET STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the order of disposition in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the order of fact-finding was against the weight of the evidence, the appellant was stopped by the police in the absence of reasonable suspicion, and the victim’s identification of the appellant should have been suppressed. The victim was struck from behind and saw only the backs of the assailants’ heads. The identification was made from a police car at a distance of 240 feet, and the show-up identification procedure was unduly suggestive:

… [W]hile the complainant initially claimed that he had a momentary opportunity to see his alleged assailants’ faces after he stood up, he later acknowledged that he merely observed “the backs of their heads” as they fled. Moreover, the credibility of the complainant’s testimony was undermined by his claim to have been able to identify the appellant during a showup identification procedure from a significant distance in the backseat of a police car using only one eye. * * *

… [T]he testimony presented at the suppression hearing established that the police, using two police cars, stopped the appellant and two companions because they fit the general description given by the complainant of “black male[ ]” “youths” riding bicycles. The presentment agency did not present any evidence at the suppression hearing that the appellant and his companions were engaged in any suspicious behavior at the time of the police stop. Moreover, at the time of the police stop, the appellant was with only two companions, which conflicted with the complainant’s description of “five youths.” Under these circumstances, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing was insufficient to establish that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant … . * * *

Wayne Bowman, a police officer who accompanied the complainant during the showup identification procedure, testified at the suppression hearing that he assured the complainant that “[w]e’re far enough back they’re not going to be able to see you” and acknowledged that he and the complainant were positioned about the distance of “[a] football field” away from the appellant and his companions during the showup identification procedure. Moreover, the complainant acknowledged at the suppression hearing that prior to the showup identification procedure, Bowman told him that the police “had stopped people that fit the description.” Under these circumstances, the Family Court improperly determined that the showup identification procedure was reasonable and not unduly suggestive … . Matter of Ahmand T., 2024 NY Slip Op 06051, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: The identification-evidence in this juvenile delinquency proceeding was too weak to support the order of disposition.

Practice Point: The street stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Practice Point: The showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) for medical malpractice, as well as the motion for leave to renew based upon recently disclosed medical records, should have been granted:​

… [P]etitioner established a reasonable excuse for the delay, to wit, the serious medical condition of the infant, which required hospitalization of the infant after his birth, feeding through a feeding tube, and numerous medical appointments while the condition of the infant was being assessed … . Considering the overall circumstances, including the petitioner’s natural predisposition to be more concerned with the infant’s medical condition and the treatment those injuries required, rather than with commencing legal action during the prescribed time period, the delay in serving a late notice of claim should have been excused … . Further, in support of that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was for leave to renew the petition, the petitioner submitted her medical records and an expert’s affidavit, which established that NYCHHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim since the alleged malpractice was apparent from an independent review of the medical records … . The medical records were not submitted earlier because, although the petitioner sought her medical records in August 2022, she only received those records on December 22, 2022 … . Further, the medical records were voluminous.

Since the conduct at issue was fully documented in the medical records, the petitioner made an initial showing that NYCHHC was not prejudiced by the delay in serving the notice of claim … , and, in response, the NYCHHC made no showing of prejudice. ​​​​​Matter of Bergado v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06039, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Here the mother of the injured infant proffered an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) and demonstrated the NYCHHC had timely notice of the nature of the action and suffered no prejudice from the delay through the medical records.

Practice Point: The motion for leave to renew was properly based upon mother’s recent receipt of medicals records not previously provided.

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, affirming County Court, determined no appeal lies from the dismissal-without-prejudice of defendant’s application for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA):

… [County Court] dismissed the application without prejudice finding that, although she met the step one eligibility criteria for an alternative sentence, “there [was] no [corroborating] evidence nor even allegations presented that [d]efendant was, at the time of the offense, a victim of domestic violence subjected to substantial abuse inflicted by a member of her family or household” as required by CPL 440.47 (2) (c) … . * * *

Where, as here, the Legislature specifically provides for appealability of certain orders but not others, “an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” … . “[S]ince the Legislature failed to provide for an appeal from the [dismissal] of an application for resentencing pursuant to [Penal Law § 60.12 and CPL 440.47 (2) (c)], no appeal was intended” … . “Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Here, the Legislature intended a different result as to the appealability of orders dismissing without prejudice under step one or step two and an order denying an application on the merits after a hearing under step three, and this Court must give effect to that intention … . Had an appeal from a dismissal without prejudice been intended under step one or step two of the DVSJA, “the [L]egislature could easily have so stated” … . Rather, the language utilized by the Legislature — specifically that dismissal is without prejudice — mandates that the appropriate remedy in this situation is for a defendant to file a new application satisfying the evidentiary requirements of CPL 440.47. Thus, as “[a]ppeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute,” this appeal is not properly before this Court and must be dismissed … . People v Melissa OO., 2024 NY Slip Op 05920, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Criminal appeals are creatures of statutes. Here the DVSJA did not provide for an appeal of the dismissal-without-prejudice of defendant’s application for resentencing. County Court dismissed the application because defendant did not submit evidence she was a victim of domestic abuse.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ claim that plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason supported defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense in this rear-end collision case:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted his affidavit, in which he averred that his vehicle, after having been stopped at an intersection for approximately 20 to 30 seconds, was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident because he stopped suddenly for no apparent reason … . Martinez v Colonna, 2024 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision, defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly does not rebut the presumption defendant was negligent. But defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason raises a question of fact in support of defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

 

,

SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED AN ARTIFICIAL MONUMENT DESCRIBED IN A DEED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE A BOUNDARY DISPUTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court, when attempting to resolve a boundary dispute, erred in ignoring an artificial monument, a railroad right-of-way, which was described in a deed:

Here, plaintiffs’ deed includes the only deed call to a natural landmark, as it places the southeast corner of plaintiffs’ property at “a willow tree on the bank of the creek.” Haley and Glasser [the parties’ surveyors] agreed that neither the willow tree nor its former location could be ascertained; similarly, the stake and stones called for in the deed at that location could not be found. Glasser also posited that, as creeks meander over time, the modern location of “the bank of the creek” provided no information as to the appropriate location of the southeast corner, so he disregarded that deed call. Glasser then opted to draw plaintiffs’ property to comport with the exact metes and bounds called for in plaintiffs’ deed, and Supreme Court adopted such methodology and accepted the resulting boundary. Even crediting Glasser’s methodology and his assertions about the meandering creek, as Supreme Court did here, Glasser also admitted that the deed call to the former railroad right-of-way reflects an artificial monument, and that he disregarded such deed call. In adopting Glasser’s methodology and accepting the resulting boundary, the court erred as a matter of law, as it focused on the courses and distances in the deed, in contravention of the long-established hierarchy giving preference to deed calls to artificial monuments … . As Supreme Court failed to consider the railroad right-of-way, we exercise our broad powers to review the record on appeal and make the appropriate determinations. Zwack v Hunt, 2024 NY Slip Op 05926, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: If an artificial monument, here a railroad right-of-way, is described in a deed, it cannot be ignored in attempting to locate boundaries.

 

, , ,

THE LANDOWNER ABUTTNG A SIDEWALK IN NYC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK; HERE THE LANDOWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT DID NOT AVER WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landowner failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of snow and ice:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes a nondelegable duty on certain landowners, which includes 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, to maintain sidewalks abutting their land, including the removal of snow and ice …  “[T]he duty applies with full force notwithstanding an owner’s transfer of possession to a lessee or maintenance agreement with a nonowner” … . Landowners, however, are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalk, as “section 7-210 adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation” … .

“A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … .  “A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . “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” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, did not have constructive notice of the alleged snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish when the sidewalk was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the plaintiff fell … . Marinis v Loschiavo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05970, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code a landowner abutting a sidewalk has a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, which includes removal of ice and snow. The landowner can demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of ice and snow by proof the sidewalk was inspected or cleaned close in time to the slip and fall, not the case here.

 

,

HERE THE AUTOMATIC DOOR AT A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CLOSED ON THE ELDERLY PLAINTIFF; SENSORS WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE DOOR FROM CLOSING WERE AVAILABLE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOOR WAS SAFE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit stemming from an automatic door at a residential facility closing on the elderly plaintiff should not have been dismissed, despite the evidence that the door was not defective. There was evidence that sensors which would stop the door from closing when a person is in the doorway could have been installed:

Given the competing expert affidavits on whether defendants maintained their property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances, Supreme Court erred in awarding defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Context is essential in gauging whether a property owner has maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Here, defendants knew certain residents required walkers or wheelchairs that would impact their ability to navigate through a doorway, that the facility’s doors were previously serviced for closing too quickly, and that presence sensors were a readily available option from the manufacturer. Plaintiff also sustained a serious injury to her right leg requiring surgery. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the premises were reasonably safe … . Any issue of comparative fault on the part of plaintiff and/or her daughter and grandson who were with her at the time of this incident is a question to be resolved by a factfinder … . Spielman v Glenwyck Dev., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05932, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the automatic door which closed on plaintiff was defective, but there was a question of fact whether the installation of sensors would have rendered the door safe for use by the elderly.

 

, ,

THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTACK ON INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS FORESEEABLE FROM THE SCHOOL’S PERSPECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff (E.E.) had been attacked and seriously injured by another student (J.H.). Supreme Court found the attack was not foreseeable. The Third Department found the evidence of foreseeability sufficient to raise a question of fact:

The record contains evidence of the following. J.H. had a school disciplinary history of 18 incidents between 2015 and 2018, which resulted in numerous detentions and suspensions. Of these 18 incidents, it appears that at least five involved acts of violence on J.H.’s part. One of the suspensions was for lighting a fellow student’s hair on fire, while another suspension was for her previous attack on E.E. That particular incident involved J.H. borrowing rings from other students in order to maximize the injuries that she could inflict upon E.E. J.H. was also suspended for obtaining unclothed photos of E.E. and posting them online under the guise that it was E.E. who was posting them. By the spring of 2017, school officials were aware that J.H. was suffering from anxiety and depression, had been the subject of a PINS petition, was a runaway risk, exhibited violent behavior, had “no judgment” and was “very unpredictable.” At some point around the middle of the 2017-2018 school year, J.H. screamed at E.E. in a school hallway, “what are you looking at?”, and E.E. reported this to a teacher. Approximately two weeks before the incident in question, J.H.’s mother called a school guidance counselor and warned that J.H. was planning to do something to get herself expelled from school. The district superintendent stated that if she had been made aware of this call, she would have advised the high school principal about it and ensured that there was a safety plan in place.

While we are mindful that there were no specific incidents between J.H. and E.E. for a number of months prior to the subject assault, the evidence of J.H.’s extensive disciplinary history, including acts of violence together with the prior incidents aimed at E.E. herself, as well as the recent warning call from J.H.’s mother, was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to whether J.H.’s attack on E.E. was foreseeable and whether it was a consequence of a lack of adequate supervision on defendant’s part … . To the extent that defendant argues a lack of foreseeability by pointing to J.H.’s deposition testimony wherein she indicated that she did not plan the attack in advance, we are unpersuaded. “The issue is not the speed of the punch, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding that conduct” … . In light of the foregoing, it was error to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. T.E. v South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 05934, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to raise a question of fact about the foreseeability of an attack on a student by another student.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant clothing store (Gap) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent-hiring-supervision complaint. Plaintiff alleged a store employee, Medel, attempted to record her on a cell phone as she was changing in a fitting room. The negligent hiring cause of action alleged Gap did not do a background check before hiring Medel, which was alleged to have been in violation of store policy:

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the store defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against them. “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … . Here, the submissions of the store defendants in support of their motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have notice of any propensity of Medel to commit misconduct … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Gap or Old Navy knew or should have known that Medel had a propensity to commit misconduct … . The plaintiff’s contention, via the affidavit of her expert, that neither Gap nor Old Navy appeared to have conducted a background check prior to hiring Medel, as was their apparent internal policy before hiring any employees, is without merit. “There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that a background check of Medel would have revealed a propensity to commit misconduct … . Hashimi v Gap, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A negligent hiring cause of action based on the allegation the employer did not conduct a background check, without more, will not survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must demonstrate the employer knew of facts which should have triggered a background check.

 

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