You are here: / Evidence
, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF CAPACITY TO COMMIT ARSON WAS “1400 DAYS LATE,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE LATE NOTICE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept late notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense to the arson charge. The defendant had been evaluated and treated for mental illness since childhood. When a new attorney was assigned to the defense, the notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence was served “1400 days late.” The defense sought to introduce expert testimony to demonstrate defendant did not have the capacity to commit arson at the time of the offense:

We … hold that the trial court’s application of CPL 250.10 precluding Mr. Sidbury’s [defendant’s] psychiatric defense was an abuse of discretion. We have been clear that the governing principle animating CPL 250.10 is “procedural fairness and orderliness” with the intention of “eliminating the element of surprise” for the prosecution … . The statute formulates a procedure for defendants to serve notice of their intent to present psychiatric evidence that is “prepared and presented manageably and efficiently,” such that it allows for “proper notification, adversarial examination, and preclusion when appropriate” … . * * *

Although the statute provides for service of the notice within 30 days of the defendant’s not-guilty plea, the court has discretion to permit service of a late notice “[i]n the interest of justice and for good cause shown” … . Late notice is permissible “at any time prior to the close of evidence”—including after trial has commenced  … .

The decision to permit late notice is within the discretion of the trial court … . That discretion, however, is “not absolute,” because “[e]xclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction for a defendant’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement implicates a defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in [their] own defense” … . Instead, the trial court must “weigh [the defendant’s constitutional] right against the resultant prejudice to the People from the belated notice” … . People v Sidbury, 2024 NY Slip Op 03318, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Although service of notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense should be made within 30 days of the not-guilty plea, the court has the discretion to accept late notice at any time prior to the close of evidence (because the constitutional right to present a defense is at stake).

 

, ,

THE BURGLARY COUNT CHARGED THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE VICTIM’S APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “HOLD A KNIFE TO THE VICTIM’S THROAT;” THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ONLY THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “COMMIT A CRIME;” DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION TAILORED TO MATCH THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s burglary conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, determined defense counsel should have insisted on a jury instruction which reflected the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment alleged defendant entered the victim’s apartment with the intent to hold a knife to the victim’s throat. The jury was instructed that it need only find defendant unlawfully entered and remained in the victim’s apartment with the intent “to commit a crime” with no mention of holding a knife to the victim’s throat. At trial whether defendant possessed a knife was contested and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing:

In its charge to the jury, County Court made no mention of the People’s theory of the crime as limited by the indictment. The court charged, with respect to the intent element, that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered or remained in the building “with the intent to commit a crime inside the building,” without specifying the intended crime. Defense counsel did not seek a tailored instruction limited to the theory in the indictment.

“There is no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular crime was intended,” to secure a conviction for burglary … . However, “[i]f the People . . . expressly limit[ ] their theory of the ‘intent to commit a crime therein’ element to a particular crime, then they . . . have . . . to prove that the defendant intended to commit that crime” … .

Here, defense counsel failed to seek an appropriately tailored instruction to the jury on burglary in the second degree or object to the burglary charge given. Defense counsel thereby permitted the jury to convict defendant upon a theory of the intent element that was not set forth in the indictment … . People v Mcclendon, 2024 NY Slip Op 03260, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: If the burglary count in the indictment charges that defendant unlawfully entered the victim’s apartment to “hold a knife to the victim’s throat,” the jury instruction should match the language in the indictment. Here the jury was instructed it need only find that defendant entered the apartment “to commit a crime” with no mention of a knife. Whether there was a knife was contested at trial and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing. Under those facts, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction which matched the knife-related crime charged in the indictment.

 

, ,

OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS RE: LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling on whether the People complied with their discovery obligations, over a two-justice dissent, noted that the People cannot use a “screening panel” to review law enforcement disciplinary records:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds (see CPL 30.30). In particular, he contends that the People’s failure to disclose existing disciplinary records of potential law enforcement witnesses for use as impeachment materials … rendered any certificate of compliance (COC) filed pursuant to CPL 245.50 improper and thereby rendered any declaration of trial readiness made pursuant to CPL 30.30 illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock. As the Court of Appeals recently stated in People v Bay, “the key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed is whether the prosecution has ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” … . Due diligence “is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[W]hether the People made reasonable efforts sufficient to satisfy CPL article 245 is fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented” … . “[C]ourts should generally consider, among other things, the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor’s office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding, the complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People’s response when apprised of any missing discovery” … . Although the statute does not require a ” ‘perfect prosecutor,’ ” the Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s good faith, while required, “is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence” … . People v Sumler, 2024 NY Slip Op 03307, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: A “screening panel” cannot be used to determined what law enforcement disciplinary records must be supplied to the defense in discovery.

Practice Point: The People’s failure to comply with discovery obligations may render the certificate of compliance improper and the ready-for-trial announcement illusory, warranting dismissal on speedy trial grounds.

 

, ,

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting both the direct testimony and the cross-examination on a specific topic. The judge only provided the direct testimony and erroneously told the jury the cross-examination did not address the topic:

… [T]he jury submitted a note requesting, inter alia, a readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.” The court responded to the jury’s request by reading back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. The court did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident, including questions about the victim’s earlier statement to the police describing a conversation that she had with defendant outside the car and questions regarding her statement to the police on the day of the incident that the driver of a car attempted to pull her into the car through the window. The court also instructed the jury that only direct examination included questions with respect to the victim being inside the car and, despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident. A meaningful response to a request for a readback of testimony “is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back … . People v Dortch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03283, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the jury requested a readback of the direct and cross on a specific topic. The judge provided only the direct which did not constitute a meaningful response to the jury note. New trial ordered.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the People, who initially erroneously asserted the complainant did not have a criminal record, did not comply with their discovery obligations and therefore the initial certificate of compliance (COC) and ready-for-trial announcement were illusory. The matter was sent back for the court to determine the motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. On remittal County Court is to consider whether defense counsel met the statutory requirement that the defense alert the People to any defects in the COC of which defense counsel is aware. The two-justice dissent argued the People had exercised due diligence to determine whether the complainant had a criminal record and that, therefore, the initial COC indicating she had no convictions was not improper:

[The People’s] [r]eliance on the report provided by the OCSO [Ontario County Sheriff’s Office] may have been in good faith, but “while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence” … . The DA’s office, as a qualified agency entitled to access such information maintained pursuant to statute by DCJS [New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services], did not mention any pre-COC attempts to obtain the complainant’s criminal history record from DCJS (see Executive Law §§ 835 [9]; 837 [6]; 845-b), nor did the DA suggest that the People, prior to filing the initial COC, ever checked their own files to determine whether the complainant—their prime witness on whose testimony the success of the prosecution would depend—had a criminal history. Instead, the People relied entirely on a non-DCJS report provided by the OCSO that appeared to have been prepared by an unidentified third-party responsible for running background checks, and the People did not independently check the complainant’s repository to determine whether the complainant had a criminal history until prompted by defense counsel’s request for a judicial subpoena, at which point the People easily obtained and disclosed the complainant’s certificates of conviction … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the People’s explanation for the discovery lapse was insufficient … .

… We … remit the matter to County Court to determine whether the People were ready within the requisite time period … , including the applicability and effect, if any, of defendant’s obligation under CPL 245.50 (4) (b)—which became effective during the pendency of the prosecution—to notify or alert the People to the extent he was aware of a potential defect or deficiency related to the COC, which awareness was a disputed issue before the court … . People v Mitchell, 2024 NY Slip Op 03256, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: The People must exercise due diligence in providing discovery. Here the failure to contact the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services to determine whether the complainant had a criminal record rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory (the accompanying certificate of compliance erroneously stated the complainant had no prior convictions).

Practice Point: Defense counsel has a statutory duty to report to the People any defects in the certificate of compliance of which the defense is aware. Here it was alleged defense counsel knew of the complainant’s criminal record and did not alert the People. The court may consider the failure to notify the People of a defect in the certificate of compliance in determining a speedy-trial motion.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff sufficiently identified the cause of her slip and fall and defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

… [D]efendants’ own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether a dangerous condition existed on the premises. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, who testified that she fell “on something slippery.” Although plaintiff did not see anything on the floor before she fell, she testified that “the back of [her] sweatshirt, the back of [her] legs,” and her “entire back” were damp after she fell and that the floor was “really shiny[ and] glossy” and had a “medicinal stench.” Plaintiff also testified that she told the store manager that “there was something on the floor that [she] slipped on” and denied having described the slippery condition as “droplets of water” on the floor. We therefore conclude that defendants’ submissions raised triable issues of fact whether something other than water, incidental to the use of the bathroom, was on the floor “constitut[ing] an ‘unreasonably dangerous condition’ ” … . We further conclude that, “[a]lthough plaintiff was unable to identify the precise cause of her fall,” her testimony regarding the shiny, glossy floor that smelled medicinal rendered “any other potential cause of her fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

… Although defendants submitted the deposition testimony of the store manager, in which she testified that the store was cleaned by a crew every morning and that employees were charged with remedying any dangerous condition that they observed throughout their shifts, defendants’ evidence “failed to establish that the employees actually performed any [inspection] on the day of the incident, or that anyone actually inspected the area in question before plaintiff’s fall” … . Byrd v Target, 2024 NY Slip Op 03252, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff sufficiently identified the substance that caused her slip and fall in the bathroom as something other than water (a medicinal stench).

Practice Point: Defendants failed to prove the area was inspected close in time to the fall. Evidence of routine cleanings is not enough to show the lack of constructive notice.

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE TO HIS INSURANCE CARRIER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined plaintiff’s request for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier should have been denied:

The statements sought in plaintiff’s cross-motion constitute materials “produced solely in connection with the report of an accident to a liability insurance carrier . . . with respect to plaintiff’s claim [that] are not discoverable under CPLR 3101 (g), but rather are conditionally immunized from discovery under CPLR 3101 (d) (2)” … . Plaintiff failed to establish either that he has a “substantial need of the materials” or that he is “unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2] …). Fusco v Hansen, 2024 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point; Here in this traffic-accident case, plaintiff did not demonstrate a need for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier (CPLR 3101(d)(2)).

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action against Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) should not have been dismissed on the ground that the alleged abuser (a pastor) was not an employee. Although the abuser was hired by a third-party church, St. Nicodemus, the ELCA’s and the Synod’s constitution provided that ELCA and Synod exercised control over discipline and termination of the pastor. Therefore there were questions of fact about ELCA’s and Synod’s status as employers:

… According to the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws, the authority to discipline pastors within the ELCA was granted to the synods and the ELCA. The authority to remove a pastor from the roster of ordained ministers remained with the synods and the ELCA. Once a pastor was removed from the roster of ordained ministers, a congregation that chose to retain that pastor could be removed from the ELCA. The entire disciplinary process was created by and governed by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised an issue of fact whether the ELCA and the Synod exercised sufficient control over the retention and supervision of plaintiffs’ alleged abuser so as to constitute his employers … . PB-20 Doe v St. Nicodemus Lutheran Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although the pastor accused of abuse was hired by a specific Lutheran church (St. Nicodemus), the defendants Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) had the power to discipline and terminate the pastor. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendants were the pastor’s employers such that the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING DID NOT SET FORTH ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATION THE STATE WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY ANOTHER CHILD IN A FOSTER HOME AND BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A CHILDREN’S FACILITY; THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act proceeding, determined the claim did not set forth any factual basis for the allegation defendants were or should have been aware of the abuse by a child in a foster home and by a staff member of a children’s facility. The claim, therefore, should have been dismissed:

Here, as to the abuse alleged at the foster home, the verified claim alleges only bare legal conclusions and lacks any factual specificity as to how defendant was put on notice of the danger posed by the minor perpetrator. As to the facility, the allegation that other staff members knew about the adult perpetrator’s participation in the off-campus overnight trips would not have put defendant on notice about the adult perpetrator’s propensity to sexually abuse children … . Although the allegation that a counselor discovered the sexual abuse may suffice to provide actual notice about the foreseeability of future abuse, the claim fails to allege that any such subsequent abuse took place … . Even granting the verified claim a liberal construction, presuming its allegations true and providing claimant the benefit of every possible inference, said claim failed to set forth any factual basis upon which defendant could have reasonably anticipated the perpetrators’ harmful conduct and, thus, it failed to “provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . As such, the Court of Claims erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss … . Berg v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03206, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: Here the allegation that the state was aware or should have been aware of the sexual abuse of the claimant by another child in a foster home and by a staff member of a children’s facility were not supported by any facts which would allow the state to investigate. Therefore the claim should have been dismissed by the Court of Claims.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO QUESTION PLAINTIFF’S CAR HYDROPLANED AND SLID INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE, DEFENDANT INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOW LONG PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS IN DEFENDANT’S LANE BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s own motion papers, which included the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, raised questions of fact about whether the emergency doctrine applied in this car accident case. Plaintiff testified her car hydroplaned on rain water and slid into the oncoming lane where her car was struck by defendant’s. Plaintiff testified he car came to a complete stop for as much as 20 seconds before the collision. Defendant alleged he had no time to brake when plaintiff’s car entered his lane:

“[I]n order for a driver to be entitled to summary judgment based upon the emergency doctrine, he or she must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the emergency situation with which he or she was confronted was not of his or her own making and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” … . There is no question that an emergency situation may arise “when a car going in the opposite direction crosses into the driver’s lane” … . Nevertheless, “summary judgment is only appropriate where it is established that the driver invoking the doctrine ‘did not contribute to the creation of the emergency situation, and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision’ ” … . Lee v Helsley, 2024 NY Slip Op 03213, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: If a party includes the opposing party’s deposition testimony in a summary judgment motion and the opposing party’s testimony raises a question of fact, summary judgment will be denied without the need to consider the opposing papers.

 

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