You are here: / Evidence
,

Oral Evidence in Quantum Meruit Case Rejected by Appellate Court

In vacating a damages award in a quantum meruit case, the Fourth Department concluded the self-serving oral proof offered by plaintiff should not have been accepted as sufficient by the trial court and that the defendants’ proof of the value of plaintiff’s work should be the basis of damages award:

Plaintiff is correct that “[p]roof of damages may be based upon oral testimony alone, so long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs”…, and that the customary means of calculating damages on a quantum meruit basis in a construction case is actual job costs plus profit minus amount paid…. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the court’s award of $31,720 is supported by a fair interpretation of the….    That award was based on plaintiff’s self-serving testimony and invoice, while defendants presented the testimony and estimates of three nonparty witnesses establishing that plaintiff’s work was not worth more than $8,290.    Under the unique circumstances of this case, i.e., the seven-month lapse between the time that plaintiff completed the project and the time that he drafted and tendered the invoice to defendants, we conclude that the proper remedy is to adopt the highest of the project estimates from defendants’ trial witnesses as the basis for the award of damages … SJ Kula, Inc v Kevin Carrier…, 520, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Statute of Limitations Tolled Until Defendant Identified by DNA; Police Had “Tacit Consent” to Enter Apartment

The Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant was identified through DNA collected in an unrelated conviction.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the police had “tacit consent” to enter defendant’s apartment:

Here, “[t]he record supports the court’s determination that the identity of defendant as the sexual assailant, and thus his whereabouts, were not ascertainable by diligent efforts” before 2008, when the State DNA Indexing System matched the DNA profile from the semen found on the victim’s night shirt with DNA obtained from defendant in conjunction with an unrelated 2007 conviction … .  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a warrantless arrest of defendant in his apartment, we note that it is well settled that “tacit consent by a person with apparent authority . . . [is] sufficient to obviate any possible violation of the Payton rule”…. Here, the People established that the police officers entered the apartment with the consent of defendant’s father…. Although “the police may not have received express permission to enter the premises, [the] gesture [of defendant’s father] of opening the door, leaving it wide open, and then walking  away from it could certainly be interpreted by the police to consist of tacit approval for them to enter”….  People v Sigl, 716, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly denied a motion to suppress a statement, finding that the statement was not tainted by an unwarned statement made an hour earlier.  In addition, over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department held that the failure to explain the five-year post release supervision (PRS) portion of the sentence when the plea was taken did not require reversal, in part because the error was not preserved:

Although defendant made an inculpatory statement after she was placed in a patrol vehicle and additional inculpatory statements after she was transported to the police station, the court granted suppression of the statement made in the patrol vehicle on the ground that her detention constituted an arrest for which the police officer lacked probable cause. The court refused, however, to suppress the subsequent statements at the police station based on its determination that they were “attenuated from the unlawful arrest.” We agree with the People that the record supports the court’s determination .. . Although there was a period of only one hour between the time of the illegal arrest and the time of defendant’s statements at the police station …, we note that defendant was given Miranda warnings before the stationhouse interview … Moreover, the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator constitutes a significant intervening event … inasmuch as that identification provided the police with probable cause for defendant’s arrest…  Lastly, there was no flagrant misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police officer who took defendant into custody … . * * *

In this case the prosecutor informed the court,“ ‘before the imposition of sentence’ ” (…see generally CPL 220.60 [3]), that he could not recall whether PRS had been discussed at the time of the plea. The prosecutor noted that they “should probably make a record of that . . . so it is clear.” At that point, the court informed defendant that it “intend[ed] to make a five year period of [PRS].” Defendant was then asked if she had a chance to talk about that with her attorney, and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Defendant was also asked if she understood that the PRS was a “part of [her] plea” and that she would be on parole supervision for five years at the end of her prison sentence. Defendant answered, “[c]orrect.”  When asked if she “still wish[ed] to go through with sentencing today,” defendant again answered, “[y]es.” In our view, the record is clear that “defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition…”… .  People v Turner, 529, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal

The Fourth Department noted that failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to Molineux evidence and the failure to object to the court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal.  The Molineux evidence in this sexual abuse case was evidence of the physical (not sexual) abuse of the victim’s brother:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because Supreme Court neglected to give limiting instructions with respect to Molineux evidence establishing that he had subjected the victim’s brother to physical abuse (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is unpreserved for our review because his attorney did not request a limiting instruction and failed to object to the court’s failure to provide one (see CPL 470.05 [2]…).    Because the Molineux evidence in question did not relate to prior sexual abuse, and because it appears from the record that defense counsel knew of the court’s failure to give limiting instructions and yet remained silent when the error could have been corrected, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Willians, 392, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However

In this DWI prosecution, the Third Department determined the People’s expert was not qualified to offer testimony about “reverse extrapolation,” but that the theory itself was sound:

[We reject defendant’s generalized challenge to] the  theory  of  reverse extrapolation – the process by which an expert, taking into consideration, among other  things, an individual’s known  BAC at a particular point  in time, renders  an  opinion  as  to  the  individual’s BAC at an earlier point in time. Assuming the expert in question is qualified and a proper foundation has been laid for such opinion, reverse extrapolation testimony may be….  Here, however, the People failed to lay a proper factual foundation for [the expert’s] testimony and, therefore, defendant’s objection in this regard should have been sustained.  People v Menegan, 105337, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

,

Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case May Constitute Brady Material

In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined a witness’ [Henry’s] agreement to testify about a “jailhouse confession” in an unrelated case may have constituted Brady material in defendant’s case because she also entered an agreement to testify about defendant’s “jailhouse confession.”  The Court determined reversal was not required because the potential Brady error was harmless under the facts:

“….[A]ssuming, without deciding, that the full terms of Henry’s cooperation agreement – including those aspects pertaining to the other matter – were Brady material subject to disclosure, reversal is not required.   Where, as here, nondisclosure follows the defense’s specific request for materials, evidence is deemed material and reversal is required only “if there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different”… . People v Johnson, 104919, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

,

Submission of Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder to Jury in Conjunctive Rather than Alternative Okay

The Second Department determined the trial court did not err when it submitted intentional murder and depraved indifference murder to the jury in the conjunctive, rather than the alternative, because more than one potential victim was present:

The defendant, relying on People v Molina (79 AD3d 1371), contends that the submission of the counts of intentional murder (and attempted murder) and depraved indifference murder to the jury in the conjunctive, rather than in the alternative, violated his right to due process. However, the defendant’s contention is without merit. “Where, as here, more than one potential victim was present at the shooting, a defendant may be convicted of both counts because he or she may have possessed different states of mind with regard to different potential victims”…. To the extent that the Appellate Division, [3rd] Department, held differently in Molina, we disagree and decline to follow that holding. People v Dubarry, 2013 NY Slip Op 04354, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

,

Child’s Out-of Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated

In affirming Family Court, the Second Department determined the child’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated:

At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]). A child’s out-of-court statements may form the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect if they are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability…. The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have been reliably corroborated ….  Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that he sexually abused the subject child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The subject child’s out-of-court statement regarding the acts of sexual abuse upon her was corroborated by an expert in clinical and forensic psychology, with a specialization in child abuse, who evaluated the subject child and concluded that she exhibited behavior indicative of sexual abuse… .  Matter of Emani W, 2013 NY Slip Op 04346, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

, ,

Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott which addressed both the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder and ineffective assistance of counsel, determined that the brutal beating of a 15-month-old baby combined with the failure to summon assistance for 2 hours met the criteria for depraved indifference to human life.  The Court found that the facts proved a brutal course of conduct over a prolonged or extended period of time.  In explaining the operative principles, Judge Pigott wrote:

This appeal is governed by the requirement that, in proving the existence of “circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,” the People must show that, at the time the crime occurred, defendant had a mens rea of “utter disregard for the value of human life” …. Put simply, the People must prove that defendant did not care whether his victim lived or died … . Additionally, the People must prove a second mens rea, namely recklessness. * * *

A brutal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim occurring over a prolonged or extended period of time is more likely to be associated with the mental state of depraved indifference to human life than brutality that is short in duration and is not repeated. This is because the actor had the opportunity to regret his actions and display caring, but failed to take the opportunity. In the present case, defendant argues that his course of conduct against the child was not prolonged. But defendant’s argument focuses exclusively on the duration of his physical assault on the child, which may have been brief. However, this argument ignores the evidence that, by his later inaction “ his failure, over some two hours, to seek medical attention for the child “ defendant turned a brutal assault into a brutal and prolonged course of conduct against a vulnerable victim.  People v Barboni, 102, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

,

People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing

The Fourth Department determined the People did not meet their “burden of going forward” at the suppression hearing and suppressed the evidence seized from the defendant.  After an anonymous call describing a person who looked nothing at all like the defendant, the police approached, detained and searched the defendant:

The officer who approached defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he asked defendant to step away from a group of individuals with whom defendant was socializing.  The officer escorted defendant to the curb while physically holding defendant’s waistband, and he instructed defendant to face the street and to place his hands on the roof of a civilian vehicle.  The officer testified that at that time defendant was not free to leave.  Having detained defendant in that manner, the officer then explained to defendant the reason for the police presence.  The officer asked defendant if he had any contraband and if defendant would consent to a search of his person.  Defendant consented to the search, during which the police obtained the physical evidence sought to be suppressed.  In light of the fact that defendant was illegally detained, i.e., without a reasonable suspicion that he was committing or had committed a crime (see CPL 140.50 [1]), his consent to the search immediately thereafter cannot be considered voluntary ….

Although “ ‘a defendant who challenges the legality of a search and seizure has the burden of proving illegality, the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance’ ” ….  We agree with defendant that the People failed to meet that burden.  People v Noah, 414, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

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