You are here: / Evidence
, ,

IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, THE JUVENILE’S BEHAVIOR—LOOKING AT THE UNDERCOVER VEHICLE AND TURNING HIS BICYCLE AROUND—DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING THE STREET STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court’s finding there was reasonable suspicion justifying the street stop of the juvenile, determined the officers’ observation of the juvenile’s “look[ing] in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal[ing], duck[ing], turn[ing] the bicycle around and rid[ing] in the opposite direction” was not sufficient. The police had been alerted to a gunshot in the area. A handgun was retrieved from the juvenile:

… [T]he totality of the circumstances did not support Family Court’s finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and his detention was unlawful because appellant’s “equivocal or innocuous behavior” was “susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation” … . Police, in two unmarked vehicles, while canvassing the area in response to a “Shotspotter” sensor report of shots fired, observed appellant riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. An officer observed appellant look in the direction of one of the unmarked vehicles, back pedal, duck, turn the bicycle around and ride in the opposite direction. The officer found appellant’s actions suspicious, exited the vehicle, approached appellant, ordered him to stop, grabbed him by both wrists and pushed him against the wall. While appellant was detained another officer observed a bulge in appellant’s pocket, squeezed the pocket area and retrieved a firearm.

Although an officer observed an L-shaped object in appellant’s pocket during the detention, there is no evidence or any reasonable inference that the officer “was in a position to view the contraband absent the unlawful detention” … . Matter of W.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 06426, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Here the police were canvassing the area after a report of a gunshot. They stopped the juvenile after observing him look at their undercover vehicle and turn his bicycle around. A handgun was retrieved during the stop. The First Department held the observations did not provide the police with “reasonable suspicion” and the street stop was therefore not justified.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant police officer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by defendant’s police van when plaintiff stepped into the road from between two parked cars. Defendant police office was responding to an “assault in progress” when plaintiff was struck:

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, by submitting evidence that he was responding to a radio call about an “assault in progress” at the time of the accident … . The police officer therefore was privileged to drive in the wrong direction on the roadway … , and can be found liable only if he operated the vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … .

Defendants demonstrated that the officer did not act with reckless disregard based on his testimony that he entered the eastbound lane after ascertaining that there was no traffic, turned on the siren and lights, and was unable to avoid striking plaintiff when she stepped out in front of the police van, despite hitting the brakes hard … . Yuet C. Chiu-Yu v Chin, 2024 NY Slip Op 06273, First Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: Defendant police officer was responding to an “assault in progress” and testified he had activated his siren and lights and had checked for pedestrians prior to striking plaintiff as she stepped into the road from between parked cars. The officer testified he braked hard but could not avoid striking plaintiff. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the officer demonstrated he did not operate his vehicle in “reckless disregard” for the safety of others.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY; THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been summarily denied, and (2) the search warrant did not provide probable cause for the search of defendant’s cell phones:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

While we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made in issuing the initial search warrant, we find the original affidavit did not establish the probable cause required to issue a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones. … [T]he warrant was supported by [investigator] Bruno’s affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 06239, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge should conduct a colloquy to determine whether defendant is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.​

Practice Point: The assertion in an affidavit that defendant’s cell phones “may” contain evidence of a drug offense does not provide probable cause for the search of the cell phones.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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