You are here: / Evidence
,

Legal Criteria for Determining Visitation Rights of Incarcerated Father Clarified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, held that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of a child’s visitation with an incarcerated parent and that denial of such visitation must be supported by “substantial evidence.” In order to clarify the law in this area, the court explained:

A rebuttable presumption that a noncustodial parent will be granted visitation is an appropriate starting point in any initial determination regarding custody and/or visitation. Moreover, the rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation applies when the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated. A parent who is in prison does not forfeit his or her visitation rights by being incarcerated. “[P]etitioner’s incarceration, standing alone, does not make a visitation order inappropriate,” but a demonstration “that such visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying such a request” …. In deciding whether the presumption is rebutted, the possibility that a visit to an incarcerated parent would be harmful to the child must be considered, together with other relevant facts. Visitation should be denied where it is demonstrated that under all the circumstances visitation would be harmful to the child’s welfare, or that the right to visitation has been forfeited. In speaking of the manner in which the presumption of visitation may be rebutted, the Appellate Division has frequently used the terms “substantial proof” and “substantial evidence.” “[T]he sweeping denial of the right of the father to visit or see the child is a drastic decision that should be based upon substantial evidence” … . This language is intended to convey to lower courts and practitioners that visitation will be denied only upon a demonstration “ that visitation would be harmful to the child “ that proceeds by means of sworn testimony or documentary evidence. Matter of Granger v Misercola, No 72, CtApp, 4-30-13

 

,

Insufficient Foundation for Cross Examination About Witness’ Mental Health

In upholding the limits the trial court placed upon the cross-examination of a witness concerning the witness’ mental health history, the Fourth Department wrote:

A defendant may question a witness about his or her mental health or psychiatric history upon a showing that the witness’s “capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by a psychiatric condition” …or that “such evidence would bear upon [the witness’s] credibility or otherwise be relevant” … . Here, we conclude that defendant failed to make the requisite showing that the witness in fact had a history of mental illness or that such evidence would bear upon her capacity to perceive or recall the events at issue …. Defense counsel’s statement that the witness was “suffering from or being treated for some variety of mental health issue” was speculative…  People v Rivera, KA 08-01758, 203, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, ,

Juvenile Delinquency Petition Jurisdictionally Defective; Insufficient Allegations that Pills Were a Controlled Substance

The Fourth Department determined a juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective because it included only the conclusory allegation that the juvenile possessed Adderall without any evidentiary facts to support it:

The petition alleged that respondent knowingly and unlawfully sold a controlled substance, i.e., Adderall (see Penal Law § 220.31).The Court of Appeals has made clear that “[s]tanding alone, a conclusory statement that a substance seized from a defendant was a particular type of controlled substance does not meet the reasonable cause requirement” … . Petitioner must provide factual allegations that establish a reliable basis for inferring the presence.  The petition here is supported by only the conclusory statements of respondent’s classmate and an officer that the substance was Adderall. Their statements are not “supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually[Adderall]” … .  Matter of Brandon A, CAF 12-01651, 231, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Warrantless Arrest in Home in Absence of Exigent Circumstances Mandated Suppression; Package from Paraguay Addressed to Defendant Properly Opened as a “Border Search”

The Fourth Department determined drugs seized from defendant’s person incident to his arrest should have been suppressed because defendant’s warrantless arrest took place in his home in the absence of exigent circumstances. The court also noted that the search and seizure of a package from Paraguay addressed to defendant did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights because opening the package “constituted a border search … which may be conducted ‘without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country’ “… . People v Boyson, KA 11-01343, 229, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

,

No Exigent Circumstances—Warrantless Search of Home Not Justified

In determining “exigent circumstances” did not exist and therefore the entry of the defendant’s home without a warrant was not justified, the Fourth Department wrote:

Factors to consider in determining whether exigent circumstances exist are “(1) the nature and degree of urgency involved and the amount of time needed to obtain a warrant; (2) a reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought[;] and (4) information indicating that the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail” ….Here, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that exigent circumstances existed to enter defendant’s apartment without a warrant … . The People established that, earlier that day, defendant sold drugs to a police agent inside his residence. In the afternoon, defendant again sold drugs to the police agent at a location outside his home. Defendant was arrested after that sale as he was driving his vehicle back toward his residence. The police went to defendant’s residence 45 minutes after his arrest and climbed through a window to make sure that no one was inside the residence who could destroy evidence before the police could obtain a warrant. Based on that evidence, we conclude that there was no urgency to enter defendant’s residence.  People v Coles, KA 10-02301, 226, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

, ,

Acquittal on Assault Charges in First Trial Did Not Preclude Presentation of Evidence of the Assaults in Second Trial—Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Could Not Be Successfully Invoked Because the Meaning of the Acquittals Was Nearly Impossible to Discern

In a second trial, the defendant moved to preclude the prosecution from introducing evidence of two assaults which were the subjects of acquittals in the first trial.  The trial court allowed evidence of the two assaults.  On appeal the defendant argued that evidence of the assaults of which she was acquitted was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The Fourth Department disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s admission of the evidence, noting that the exact meaning of an acquittal in a criminal trial is often impossible to demonstrate:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” …. Thus, the doctrine applies in a situation such as this, where at a prior trial there was a mixed verdict in which the jury acquitted a defendant of certain charges, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges ….  “Application of the collateral estoppel doctrine requires that the court determine what the first judgment decided and how that determination bears on the later judgment . . . The rule is easily stated but frequently difficult to implement because the meaning of a general verdict is not always clear and mixed verdicts may, at times, appear inherently ambiguous.  Nevertheless, the court must assume the jury reached a rational result . . . , and a defendant claiming the benefit of estoppel carries the burden of identifying the particular issue on which he [or she] seeks to foreclose evidence and then establishing that the fact finder in the first trial, by its verdict, necessarily resolved that issue in his [or her] favor” …. “Defendant’s burden to show that the jury’s verdict in the prior trial necessarily decided a particular factual issue raised in the second prosecution is a heavy one indeed, and as a practical matter severely circumscribes the availability of collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions . . . ‘[I]t will normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial’ ” …. People v Brandie E…, KA 09-01366, 202, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, ,

Error Relating to Assessment of 10% Surcharge Must Be Preserved by Objection

Over two dissents, the Fourth Department determined the argument that a probation officer’s affidavit was not sufficient to justify a 10% surcharge must be preserved for appeal.  The Fourth Department wrote:

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the issue whether a surcharge of 10% is properly imposed does not require preservation. While this Court has in the past relied on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement of CPL 470.05 (2) when reviewing that issue …, more recent decisions from the Court of Appeals have established that issues regarding restitution require preservation …. In addition, the Court of Appeals has held that the mandatory surcharge set forth in Penal Law § 60.35
(1) is not part of a sentence ….Those cases compel us to conclude that an issue regarding a surcharge imposed on restitution pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (8) must be preserved for our review and that we cannot rely on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement.   People v Kirkland, KA 11-01835, 147, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, , ,

In Lead Paint Exposure Case, Court’s Order to Provide Medical Report Linking Injuries to Exposure Before Depositions Upheld

In a case which alleged plaintiff was injured by lead paint exposure, Supreme Court ordered plaintiff, as part of discovery, to produce a medical report linking the injuries to lead exposure before depositions.  The Fourth Department affirmed over a dissent which argued plaintiff was improperly being forced to hire an expert at the very outset of the litigation:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its broad discretion in directing plaintiff to produce a medical report containing a diagnosis of the alleged injuries sustained by plaintiff and causally relating such injuries to lead exposure before any CPLR 3121 examinations are conducted.  As previously noted, plaintiff alleges numerous and wide- ranging neurological, physiological, psychological, educational, and occupational effects of his childhood exposure to lead. Although plaintiff disclosed his medical and educational records, none of those records diagnoses plaintiff with a lead-related injury or causally relates any of plaintiff’s alleged physical or mental conditions to lead exposure. Indeed, plaintiff’s mother testified at her deposition that no health care provider had ever told her that plaintiff had “any residual injuries from lead exposure.” The only reference in the disclosed records to an injury that may have been caused by exposure to lead is a school district health and development assessment, which states that “[e]levated [blood] lead level may have had an effect” on plaintiff’s educational performance. Although the dissent is correct that CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 do not require the disclosure directed in this case, they likewise do not preclude a trial judge from proceeding in the manner at issue herein. Giles v A. Gi Yi, et al, CA 12-01288, 59, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Conclusory Allegations of Customer Confusion Insufficient to Defeat Motion for Summary Judgment

In reversing the motion court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in an unfair competition action, the Fourth Department determined that conclusory allegations of customer confusion or mistake in plaintiff’s affidavit were not sufficient, and the exhibits attached to the affidavit to demonstrate customer confusion were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (insufficient foundation).  KG2, LLC … v Weller…, CA 12-01225, 338, 4th Dept. 4-26-13

 

,

Plaintiff Need Not Exclude Every Other Possible Cause of an Accident to Demonstrate Proximate Cause

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant because of an alleged inability of the plaintiff to establish proximate cause, the Fourth Department determined the plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of the accident other than the defendant’s acts or omissions:

In order to establish proximate cause, “[p]laintiffs need not positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident. Rather, the proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence . . . A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely . . . or more reasonable . . . that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … . Furthermore, it is well settled that, in seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint, a defendant “must affirmatively establish the merits of its . . . defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … .  New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal… v Casella Construction, Ind, CA 12-02094, 399, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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