You are here: / Evidence
,

Failure to Allege Specific Facts to Rebut Process Server Affidavit Required Denial of Motion to Vacate Judgment w/o Hearing

The Second Department upheld Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to vacate a judgment on the ground defendant was not served.  No hearing was necessary because defendant did not swear to specific facts to rebut the facts in the process server’s affidavit:

“Although a defendant’s sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavits'”…. Since the appellant never denied the specific facts contained in the process server’s affidavit, no hearing was required… .  Bank of NY v Samuels, 2013 NY Slip Op 03958, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

,

Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful

In determining the search of defendant’s backpack was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify it, the First Department wrote:

The search of defendant’s backpack following his arrest was unlawful because he was handcuffed at the time of the search and it was no longer in his control…. The contents of the backpack, which included a pair of pliers and unused garbage bags, should have been suppressed because even where a container is not in the exclusive control of the police, exigency justifying its search incident to arrest is not established in the absence of “some reasonable basis for the belief that the contents of those containers might pose a danger to the arresting officers or when there is legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence which might reasonably be thought to reside within the containers”….  People v Diaz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03937, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

Preclusion Proper Remedy for Discarding of Computer Containing Crucial Evidence​

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s precluding plaintiff from offering any evidence and/or testimony at trial in opposition to defendants’ defenses and counterclaims stemming from plaintiff’s discarding a computer containing crucial evidence:

Plaintiff’s conduct evinces a higher degree of culpability than mere negligence…. Indeed, the record shows that, despite numerous court orders and the court’s assignment of a special referee to supervise discovery, plaintiff delayed discovery and did not disclose to defendants that it had discarded the subject computer for almost two years, notwithstanding that such disclosure was specifically requested by defendants. Further, the testimony of plaintiff’s bookkeeper that a litigation hold, either written or oral, was never issued directing him to preserve electronic data, supports a finding that plaintiff’s disposal of the subject computer was, at the very least, grossly negligent ….  Defendants established that plaintiff’s spoliation of critical evidence compromised defendants’ ability to prosecute their counterclaims … . Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that preclusion was an appropriate spoliation sanction. Harry Wiess, Inc v Moskowitz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03927, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

,

“Exigent Circumstances” Exception to Search Warrant Requirement Applied

In finding the “exigent circumstances” exception to the search warrant requirement for entry into a private residence applied to the facts, the Third Department explained the criteria as follows:

The Court of Appeals has outlined three elements to determine whether exigent circumstances exist to justify entry without a warrant: “(1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand  and an immediate  need  for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” … .  The United States Supreme Court has since eliminated the intent element for 4th Amendment purposes … .  People v Musto, 105008, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

,

Relationship Between Defendant’s Act and Fatal Car Accident Too Attenuated to Support Criminally Negligent Homicide

The Third Department determined that the relationship between the defendant’s act and a fatal car accident was too attenuated to support a conviction for criminally negligent homicide.  The defendant, a passenger, jerked the steering wheel, apparently in an attempt to intimidate or strike a car that was along side of the car defendant was in.  The car defendant was in struck a guard rail and caused the blockage of one lane of traffic.  The one car accident caused traffic to back up.  30 minutes later the fatal accident occurred.  The Third Department wrote:

“[A]n act ‘qualifies as a sufficiently direct cause when the ultimate harm should have been reasonably foreseen'”… .   A connection between the conduct and the death that is obscure or “merely probable” will not suffice ….  On the other hand, we note that the mere lapse of time will not  necessarily serve to break the chain of causation … .  Nor  does  a  defendant’s conduct  need  to be  the  sole cause  of death  in order  for criminal responsibility to attach ….  * * *

Here, the People failed to present evidence directly linking defendant’s act to the victims’ deaths …. Although the accident reconstructionist called as a witness by the People provided an opinion as to the sequence of the five-car collision, he could not estimate the speed of the vehicles involved, he did not attempt to reconstruct the initial accident and he offered no opinion to support the conclusion that the third and fatal accident was  a foreseeable result of the initial accident … . People v Ballenger, 104664, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

 

,

Family Court Should Have Allowed Mother to Subpoena Medical Records to Rebut Allegations Against Her In Custody Proceeding​

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it denied the mother’s subpoena for medical treatment records to rebut the allegations against her in a custody proceeding:

Under the particular facts of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it did not sign a subpoena proffered by the mother so as to permit her the opportunity to present certain medical treatment records to rebut the allegations asserted against her. The subject medical treatment records were relevant to the issue of whether an award of physical custody to the father was in the best interests of the subject child, and should have been considered by the Family Court ….  Matter of Murphy v Lewis, 2013 NY Slip Op 03843, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

, ,

Injury Not Connected to Accident; Motion to Set Aside Should Have Been Granted

In reversing Supreme Court and finding the motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted, the court determined there was no valid line of reasoning that led to the conclusion plaintiff’s serious injury was related to the car accident at issue:

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could possibly lead rational persons to conclude that the plaintiff’s alleged serious injury was causally related to the subject automobile accident. Given the evidence of the plaintiff’s previous injuries and degenerative condition at the time of the subject accident in 2005, the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert, who first started treating the plaintiff nearly three years after the subject accident, that the plaintiff’s injuries, as observed in 2008, were causally related to the subject accident in 2005, was speculative. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages and for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of serious injury. McDonald v Kohanfars, 2013 NY Slip Op 03821, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

Submission of Affidavit of Merit in Reply Improper​

In reversing the vacation of the dismissal of a medical malpractice action, the Second Department noted that it was improper to submit an affidavit of merit from a medical expert in reply papers:

The assertion of the plaintiff’s counsel that he incorrectly calendared the date on which the note of issue was due amounted to a reasonable excuse of law office failure…. However, the plaintiff failed to provide in her initial moving papers an affidavit of merit from a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of the cause of action alleging medical malpractice…. It was improper for the plaintiff to submit an affidavit of merit from a medical expert for the first time in her reply papers….  King v Dobriner, 2013 NY Slip Op 03817, 2nd Dept., 5-29-13

 

,

Unsigned Depositions Admissible

In ruling that both defendant’s and plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcripts could be considered in slip and fall summary judgment motion, the Second Department wrote:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly considered the deposition transcripts submitted in support of the motion. The unsigned but certified deposition of the defendant was admissible under CPLR 3116(a), since the transcript was submitted by the party deponent himself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent…. Additionally, in reply to the plaintiff’s opposition, the defendant submitted evidence which showed that the plaintiff’s certified deposition transcript had been submitted to her for review, but that she failed to sign and return it within 60 days. Thus, the plaintiff’s deposition transcript was properly used as fully as though it were signed…. Moreover, this evidence demonstrating the defendant’s compliance with CPLR 3116(a) was properly considered in reply because it was submitted in direct response to allegations raised for the first time in the plaintiff’s opposition papers…. David v Chong Sun Lee, 2013 NY Slip Op 03811, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

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