You are here: / Evidence
, ,

Records Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Unsealed in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding Pursuant to Mental Health Law

In a proceeding which determined respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, the court ordered the unsealing of records related to three rapes and two robberies for which respondent was indicted in 1968.  The convictions of one count of rape and one count of robbery had been overturned because respondent was found to have been incompetent at the time he pled guilty. In finding the records of the overturned convictions were properly unsealed, the First Department determined that Mental Health Law 10.08 (c), which provides that the State is entitled to all records relating to the respondent’s commission or alleged commission of a sex offense, supersedes Criminal Procedure Law 160.50, which requires that the record of a criminal proceeding that is terminated in favor of the accused be sealed.  State v John S., 2013 NY Slip Op 01622, 9530, 30051/09m 1st Dept. 3-14-13

 

, ,

Failure to Instruct Jury that Medical Practice Guidelines Did Not Set Forth the Applicable Standard of Care Required Reversal

The case turned on whether the defendant failed to recommend and perform a timely colonoscopy (the plaintiff, who had a history of colon polyps, contracted colon cancer).  At trial the defendant doctor was allowed to introduce in evidence guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association which included the recommended frequency of colonoscopies.  The plaintiff objected and requested a limiting instruction informing the jury that the guidelines “did not set forth the standards of care with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff’s colon cancer.” The trial court gave a cursory limiting instruction at the time the guidelines were admitted, and told the jury another instruction would be forthcoming.  The trial court subsequently declined to give any further instructions on the issue.  In reversing the judgment for the defendant and ordering a new trial, the First Department wrote:

The court erred in failing to give the instruction that plaintiff requested. Although the trial court’s instruction informed the jury that it was to make its determination based on “all the evidence,” this instruction was not sufficient to guide the jury on how to apply the Guidelines to the facts before it. The court’s instruction as rendered failed to make clear to the jury that the Guidelines were simply recommendations regarding treatment, and thus, that compliance with the Guidelines did not, in and of itself, constitute good and accepted medical practice … . The trial court should have given the jury an instruction specifically stating that the Guidelines were not the same as standards of care and that the jury was to make its determination based on the particular circumstances of the case, not on the Guidelines alone. Introducing the Guidelines into evidence without the appropriate limiting instruction allowed the jury to infer that a physician need not exercise professional judgment with regard to individual patients, but could simply abide by the recommendations promulgated in the Guidelines.  Hall v Kiyici, 2013 NY Slip Op 01616, 9067, 23531/05, 1st Dept. 3-14-13

 

,

Insufficient Proof to Support “Medical Neglect” Finding

The First Department reversed Family Court’s finding of medical neglect related to a five-month-old’s fractured femur.  Family Court accepted the proof that the baby, for the first time in his life, rolled over and fell off a couch when the father left him briefly to throw away a soiled diaper.  Family Court’s medical-neglect determination was based on testimony that the fracture “would cause the child evident pain…” and the length of time between the accident and when medical attention was sought.  The First Department noted the proof that swelling would not be immediately apparent and that a hairline fracture would not cause much pain until it progressed into a full fracture, as well as a video of the child showing no movement problems or signs of pain. In light of proof the child may not have exhibited symptoms of pain, the First Department determined the finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Amir L., 2013 NY Slip Op 01617, 9277-9278-9279, 1st Dept. 3-14-13

 

,

Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Rarely a Basis for Summary Judgment/Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Control of the Instrumentality Causing Injury Precluded Summary Judgment.

A homeowner was sued by a utility employee who was injured when a staircase leading to the homeowner’s basement collapsed.  At the deposition the homeowner testified the house was new when he bought it and he had made no alterations to the stairway.  The plaintiff was granted summary judgment pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  The Second Department reversed because it could not be ruled out that the builder of the home, and not the defendant, was negligent.  It was not demonstrated, therefore, that the accident was caused by an instrumentality in the exclusive control of the defendant.  The Court wrote:

The plaintiff’s reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must establish the following in order for the doctrine to apply: “(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Only in the rarest cases will a plaintiff be awarded summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in the course of a trial by relying upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … .  Bunting v Haynes, 2013 NY Slip Op 01521, 2012-01717, Index No 25382/10, Second Dept. 3-13-13

 

, ,

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

Proof that the defendant threatened the complainant with a taser or stun gun was legally insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of burglary in the first degree and menacing in the second degree.  Although the Second Department determined it was harmless error, the Court also noted that it was error to shackle the defendant and put black bunting around the defense table, without also putting black bunting around the prosecution table. The jury, in that circumstance, may have inferred the bunting was designed to hide shackles.  “The federal constitution ‘forbids the use of visible shackles … unless that use is justified by an essential state interest … specific to the defendant on trial’ …”.  County Court, in this instance, failed to articulate on the record an adequate justification individualized to the defendant for the shackling … .  People v Morillo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01572, 2010-11438, Ind No 2052/09, 2nd Dept. 5-13-13

 

, ,

“Aid of the Court No Longer Required” in Neglect Proceeding

The grandmother and mother of a seven-month-old were found to have neglected the child by briefly leaving the child unattended in the kitchen sink with the water running when the hot water “spiked” causing burns.  The mother and grandmother moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to Family Court Act 1051 (c) on the ground aid of the court was not required.  The Second Department noted that the facts were sufficient to sustain the petition, but determined the petition should be dismissed because the aid of the court was not required.  Following the incident the mother completed all the programs required by children’s services, the grandmother attended parenting classes with the mother voluntarily, the child was returned to the mother 18 months before the hearing, home visits confirmed the child was not left unattended and was bathed properly, and the hot water “spikes” had been eliminated. The Second Department wrote:  “The foregoing demonstrates that the incident on which the petition was based was an isolated one, that the mother and grandmother have been rehabilitated, and that the child is no longer at risk of being neglected …”.  Matter of Kayden H., 2013 NY Slip Op 01549, 2011-09702, 2011-09704, Docket No N-22472-09, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

, ,

Medical Malpractice—Expert Opinion Can Be Based Entirely on Experience.

In affirming the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the First Department noted that an expert’s affidavit can be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact even where the opinion is based entirely on the expert’s professional experience: “While an expert affidavit cannot be speculative, there is no threshold requirement in an ordinary case, not involving a novel scientific theory, that a medical opinion regarding deviation be based upon medical literature, studies, or professional group rules in order for it to be considered. It can be based upon personal knowledge acquired through professional experience …”.  Mitrovic v Silverman, 9282, 304369/09, First Dept. 3-7-13

 

,

Spoliation of Evidence.

Plaintiff was injured in a fall from a chair.  Plaintiff’s notice of claim specifically requested preservation of the chair.  The defendant failed to preserve it.  Plaintiff testified the chair was not broken. In reversing summary judgment granted to the defendant, the First Department determined that an expert could have found a latent defect in the chair if it had been preserved.  Therefore the defendant was sanctioned by the preclusion of any testimony about the condition of the chair and an adverse inference charge to the jury at trial.  Gilchrist v City of New York, 8804, 103400/08, First Dept. 3-7-13

 

,

Strip Search After Controlled Buy Upheld

A warrantless search of “every part of [defendant’s] vehicle” as well as a strip search of the defendant was upheld by the Third Department.  The search of the vehicle was justified by the same evidence which provided probable cause for the arrest (a controlled drug purchase by a confidential informant).  And the strip search was justified by the failure to find narcotics or buy money in the preliminary vehicle search. “[A] strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner… Some of the factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of such a search are the circumstances of the arrest, the defendant’s nervousness or unusual conduct, tips from informants, and ‘an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing’…”.  People v Anderson, 104220, 104447, 3rd Dept. 3-7-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS, SEARCH

,

“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband

In affirming the denial of a suppression motion, the First Department determined that the chain of events observed by the arresting officer before the stop of defendant’s vehicle led to the proper application of the “plain view” doctrine for the seizure of contraband.  Defendant was seen going into a store (which was a frequent target of thieves) with a large empty bag and coming out of the store with the bag visibly heavier and fuller.  After a vehicle stop (the stop was not contested or discussed in the decision), the defendant gave answers to questions that contradicted what the officer had observed and the officer saw a large amount of over-the-counter medications in the bag.  In finding the seizure of the bag justified under the “plain view” doctrine, the Court said:  “The plain view doctrine does not require certainty or near certainty as to the incriminating nature of the items.  Instead, it ‘merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief …that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.  A practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required’ …”.  People v Taylor, 9439, 6265/10, 1st Dept. 3-7-13​

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESS, SEARCH

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