You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on certain Labor Law 241(6) causes of action and the city’s motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped on discarded plastic and rock debris from prior sidewalk demolition and construction. Plaintiff was working on reconstruction of a sidewalk bridge when he fell. Therefore the plastic and rock debris did not constitute material integral to the work plaintiff was performing as Supreme Court had held. In addition, although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed because the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the debris:

The plastic and the rock were not integral to the work performed by plaintiff or his coworkers because it constituted an accumulation of debris from previous work that was left in a “passageway” or “working area” which should have been kept free of debris ​… . * * *​

The “task at hand” did not involve demolition. It is uncontested that plaintiff and his coworkers were dismantling and rebuilding a sidewalk bridge at a new location and that plaintiff fell when he slipped and tripped while manually transporting a heavy beam to the new location. While it is undisputed that Padilla was a general contractor that did demolition work, the court’s overly broad view of the integral to the work defense reads [Industrial Code] sections 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) out of existence. Lourenco v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Debris left over from another job was not “integral” to the work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s fall, therefore the presence of the debris violated certain provisions of the Industrial Code.​

Practice Point: Although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, it did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Therefore the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not prove defendant’s default in this foreclosure action because the relevant business records were not attached to the motion papers:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . Although the plaintiff submitted the mortgage and the unpaid note, it failed to submit admissible evidence of the default.

“An affiant’s assertion regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which he or she relied in making such an assertion, constitutes inadmissible hearsay” … . It is the business record itself that serves as proof of the matter asserted and “not the foundational affidavit” … .

Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of the servicer and attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff, which set forth that, “[a]ccording to the business records that I have reviewed . . . the Defendant Roy Daleo failed to comply with the terms of the Note and Mortgage by defaulting in the monthly payment that was due on April 1, 2013 and monthly thereafter.” The affiant did not attach the business records upon which she relied in making her assertion regarding the defendant’s alleged default, and no such records were attached to the plaintiff’s motion. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s witness was therefore inadmissible hearsay and failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .  MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Daleo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03477, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: To prove a defendant’s default in a foreclosure action, the affidavit alleging default must be accompanied by the supporting business records. If the records are not provided, the affidavit is hearsay.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE PEOPLE PROVIDED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK JURORS; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE HANDCUFFED DEFENDANT’S SHOW-UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court’s Batson and suppression rulings, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the trial court’s rulings (1) the People demonstrated race-neutral reasons for striking two Black jurors and (2) the show-up identification of the defendant, who was handcuffed, was proper:

Overall, C.C.’s responses gave rise to a reasonable inference that: (1) he viewed the arrest of his cousin for marijuana possession as a crime against his cousin; (2) he viewed the arrest of his cousin as a “raid” by police; and (3) his negative feelings towards police could affect his view of police witnesses in the case, regardless of any contradictory assurances he might have given. These inferences are patently reasonable and the trial court’s determination that the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the People in support of their peremptory strike of C.C. were credible and non-pretextual finds ample support in the record … . * * *

The People expressed concern that K.C.’s job duties would cause her to be inappropriately sympathetic to defendant. K.C.’s job involved determining whether juvenile offenders would be entitled to intake diversion, or face prosecution, and she was previously employed as a caseworker. We have previously recognized that a party may permissibly strike a juror “who works in a certain field . . . because that party believes—for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case—that such individual may have a more sympathetic attitude or view toward the opposing party” … . * * *

Although this Court has stated that a showup procedure in which a suspect is handcuffed and in the presence of police is “suggestive and not preferred” and “presses judicial tolerance to its limits” … , we have concluded that, such a showup is “reasonable under the circumstances” when it is conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime … . When a showup is done as part of “one unbroken chain of events—crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension and identifications” such a procedure is acceptable … . As we have recognized, ” ‘prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant’s arrest at or near the crime scene have been generally allowed” ,,, . Moreover, “[w]hether a crime scene showup is unduly suggestive is a mixed question of law and fact. Thus, if record evidence supports the determination below, this Court’s review is at an end” …. . People v Wright, 2024 NY Slip Op 03320, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: A show-up identification procedure in close geographical and temporal proximity to the crime can be proper, even when the defendant is handcuffed.

 

, ,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED WHILE HIS PAROLE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE; DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS THEN SEARCHED AND HEROIN WAS FOUND; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED UNDER THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD, NOT THE “RIGHT TO INQUIRE” STANDARD APPLIED BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, remitting the case for a determination of the suppression motion under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined there was a question whether the defendant was illegally detained after a valid traffic stop to allow investigation of a possible parole violation. The parole officer was called to the scene, the defendant’s car was searched, and heroin was found:

The proper standard for detaining an individual beyond “the time reasonably required” to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion … . Given that a traffic stop is a “limited seizure” of the occupants of a vehicle, “[f]or a traffic stop to pass constitutional muster, the officer’s action in stopping the vehicle must be justified at its inception and the seizure must be reasonably related in scope, including its length, to the circumstances which justified the detention in the first instance” … . A “continued involuntary detention of [a] defendant . . . constitute[s] a seizure in violation of their constitutional rights, unless circumstances coming to [the officer’s] attention following the initial stop furnishe[s] . . . reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity” … . Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation . . . become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a ticket for the violation” … . In this vein, although that “mission” encompasses ” ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop,’ ” it does not include additional measures designed to detect evidence of criminality … . Thus, an otherwise lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged “absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual” … .

… [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding that the traffic stop was justified at its inception, based upon the police officer’s observation that defendant committed a traffic infraction … . However, the courts below evaluated whether the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required for its completion under the founded suspicion standard applicable to the common law right to inquire … , a lesser standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary to prolong a traffic stop. As a result, remittal is necessary to allow for consideration of this issue under the proper standard. People v Thomas, 2024 NY Slip Op 03319, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: After a valid traffic stop, the question whether defendant was properly detained to allow inquiry into suspected crimes unrelated to the traffic infraction is analyzed under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, not the lesser “right to inquire” standard.

 

, , , ,

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.

 

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