You are here: / Evidence
, , , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WARRANTING CIVIL MANAGEMENT, THE JUDGE CONFLATED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY A CONSTELLATION OF CONDITIONS, DISEASES AND DISORDERS, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON OUTSIDE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined several errors by the judge in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding tainted the judge’s finding that the state had not proven respondent sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality and required civil management:

This article 10 proceeding arose out of respondent Richard V.’s 2002 conviction of rape in the first degree. In October 2001, respondent and an accomplice posed as plumbers to gain entry to the apartment of a female acquaintance. After the woman brought them inside, respondent subdued her with pepper spray, restrained her, repeatedly attacked her, threatened to kill her, and twice violently raped her.* * *

The sole issue at the bench trial was whether respondent suffers from a mental abnormality that “predisposes [him] to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense” resulting in “having serious difficulty [] controlling such conduct” … . At the second stage of an article 10 proceeding — the dispositional phase — the standard is whether a respondent has “such an inability to control his behavior that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” …

There can be little dispute that Supreme Court conflated the applicable legal standards. * * *

… Supreme Court committed reversible error in finding that the State could not use a “constellation” of conditions, diseases, and disorders to establish that respondent has a mental abnormality. * * *

Supreme Court’s extensive usage of outside research blurred the lines between the roles of judge and counsel, depriving the parties of the opportunity to respond … . Matter of State of New York v Richard V., 2024 NY Slip Op 02158, First Dept 4-23-24

Practice Point: When a judge does outside research to inform the decision, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to respond.

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN INDEPENDENT-SOURCE HEARING BEFORE ALLOWING THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL; HEARING AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the conviction and ordering an independent-source hearing and a new trial, found the record insufficient to determine whether the undercover officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Supreme Court, rather than holding an independent-source hearing, relied on the undercover officer’s prior testimony at the probable cause hearing. But the Court of Appeals found that testimony insufficient:

… [W]e address whether Supreme Court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for an independent source hearing and, instead, used an undercover police officer’s prior testimony at a probable cause hearing to render a determination on whether the officer had an independent source for his prospective in-court identification of defendant. … [T]he trial court erred in admitting the undercover officer’s in-court identification without a hearing record sufficient to support an independent source determination for the identification. * * *

… [At the probable cause hearing] the undercover testified that he had never interacted with the seller before the date in question and did not interact with the seller directly during the buy and bust. Although the undercover described the seller’s clothes, he did not provide a physical description of the seller. He did, however, testify about his close proximity to the seller—close enough to hear that the intermediary and the seller were having a conversation, but not their words. … [H]is testimony did not address how long the seller was within his sight or the nature of his confirmatory identification of defendant. People v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 02128, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the trial judge relied on the officer’s testimony at the probable cause hearing to demonstrate the officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. The testimony was deemed too weak to demonstrate an independent source. New trial and independent-source hearing ordered.

 

,

BEFORE ADMITTING NON-EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, THE BASIS SHOULD BE DETERMINED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE PARTY OFFERING THE WITNESS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS, AND THE NEED FOR THE TESTIMONY MUST BE DEMONSTRATED; IN ADDITION, A THOROUGH RECORD MUST BE CREATED AND THE JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THEY ARE FREE TO REJECT THE NON-EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurrence, determined the “non-eyewitness” who purported to identify the defendant in a video was not shown to be sufficiently familiar with the defendant and there was no showing that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification:

This case concerns an increasingly prevalent issue: when may someone who is not an eyewitness to a crime testify to a jury that the defendant is the person depicted in a photo or video. We hold that such testimony may be admitted where the witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant that their testimony would be reliable, and there is reason to believe the jury might require such assistance in making its independent assessment. Here, there was no showing that the proffered witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant to render his testimony helpful, or that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification that the witness’s testimony would have overcome. * * *

… [B]efore admitting lay non-eyewitness identification testimony, a court should inquire as to the basis of the witness’s familiarity outside the presence of the jury in a separate hearing or voir dire, as the court properly did here. The party offering the witness—in most cases the People—bears the burden of establishing that their testimony would both be helpful and necessary. … [I]t is incumbent on both parties to create a thorough record to aid the court in its determination and to allow for meaningful appellate review. … [I]t would be appropriate for the trial court to provide cautionary jury instructions, both at the time of the testimony and during the final charge, explaining to the jury that lay non-eyewitness identification testimony is mere opinion testimony that they may choose to accept or reject, and reminding the jurors that because they are the finders of fact, it is their opinion as to whether the defendant is depicted in the surveillance footage that matters … . People v Mosley, 2024 NY Slip Op 02125, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals offers guidance on the use of non-eyewitness testimony to identify the defendant in a video. The reliability of the witness and the need for the testimony must be demonstrated outside the presence of the jury. A full record must be made. And the jury should be instructed they are free to reject the testimony.

 

, ,

REVERSING THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WITHOUT OPINION OR MEMORANDUM DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Fourth Department without an opinion or memorandum decision, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in defendants’ favor in this medical malpractice case. ​Amber R. v Pediatric & Adolescent Urgent Care of W. N.Y., PLLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02085, CtApp 4-18-24

From the dissent in Amber R. v Pediatric & Adolescent Urgent Care of W. N.Y., PLLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04063 [218 AD3d 1344], Fourth Dept 7-28-23:

The medical records proferred by defendants established that, after a failed first intubation attempt with a 3.5 mm ET by defendant Katelyn Johnson-Clark, D.O., a physician with little training in the intubation process, Johnson-Clark attempted intubation using a smaller 3.0 mm ET. It is undisputed that there was no verification of the proper placement of that ET by way of an end-tidal CO2 detector. The medical records further establish that one minute after the placement of the ET, the infant’s heart rate quickly dropped and one minute thereafter, the infant’s belly was distended. Another physician testified at her deposition that both of those signs indicate that there was a potential issue with the intubation. When the specialized transport team arrived, it was determined by way of a CO2 detector that the ET was not in the proper place. Thus, we conclude that defendants’ own submissions raise questions of fact whether Johnson-Clark acted negligently in the intubation of the infant and the motion was properly denied in part without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition papers … . We would therefore affirm that part of the order denying defendants’ motion insofar as it seeks summary judgment dismissing the claim of malpractice related to the intubation of the infant.

 

, ,

ACQUITTAL ON THE RAPE AND FORCIBLE TOUCHING CHARGES RENDERED THE “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD” CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s “endangering the welfare of a child” conviction, determined defendant’s acquittal on the rape and forcible touching charges rendered the conviction “against the weight of the evidence:”

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we consider the jury’s acquittal on other counts, and, under the circumstances of this case, find the jury’s acquittal on the other counts supportive of a reversal of the conviction on the count of endangering the welfare of a child … . Here, the defendant was charged with, but acquitted of, rape in the second degree, rape in the third degree, and forcible touching, and the alleged conduct that formed the basis of those charges was essentially the same alleged conduct that formed the basis of the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. Once the jury discredited the complainant’s testimony with respect to the charges of rape and forcible touching, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant “knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” … , as charged on the count of endangering the welfare of a child. People v Liston, 2024 NY Slip Op 02066, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point; Defendant was acquitted of the rape and forcible touching charges which were based on the same allegations as was the conviction on the “endangering the welfare of a child” charge. The conviction, therefore, was “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

,

THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE, ESPECIALLY AS THE STANDARD APPLIES TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WHO CONSENT TO AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, confirmed the revocation of petitioner’s medical license by the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct. The dissenters argued the publications used by respondent’s expert to assess the quality of care provided by petitioner were advisory in nature and did not apply to the aggressive care petitioner offered to terminally ill patients:

From the dissent:

… [T]he findings of the Committee were premised entirely on the erroneous understanding of respondent’s expert, Isamettin Aral, that professional societies establish the accepted standard of care. The record reflects that, on cross-examination, petitioner’s counsel asked Aral the question, “what do you mean when you say standard of care?” In response, Aral testified, “[w]e have accepted guidelines that are published by multiple societies, they include our board, [the] American College of Radiology or [the] American Board of Radiology, [and] national comprehensive cancer networks and these are fairly descriptive, prescriptive guidelines for what a physician should do in the management of cases in very specific areas. When you deviate from those, it is considered to fall short of a standard.”

Although we acknowledge that petitioner pursued what appears to have been aggressive care with the goal of prolonging the lives of patients A-G and was in accordance with their wishes, the record lacks any reference to pervasive standards outlining physician obligations relative to the extraordinary circumstances of terminally ill patients with advanced, late-stage disease. As Aral’s testimony is unsupported by an evidentiary foundation and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct offered no other proof, we would find the Committee’s determination to be fatally flawed, fundamentally unfair and affected by an error of law. Matter of Yi v New York State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 2024 NY Slip Op 01955, Third Dept 4-11-24

Practice Point: In an administrative proceeding which resulted in the revocation of petitioner’s medical license, two dissenter’s argued the evidence used by respondent’s expert to determine the required standard of care was only advisory in nature and therefore insufficient, especially as that standard was applied to the consensual aggressive treatment of terminally ill patients.

 

, , , ,

THE THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO PRESERVE AN “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case, joined the other appellate division departments in finding that a plaintiff may make a “verdict is against the weight of the evidence” argument on appeal without moving to set aside the verdict on that ground:

… [We now join our colleagues in our sister Departments in concluding that plaintiffs were not required to preserve their weight of the evidence contention by moving to set aside the verdict upon that basis … . A trial court has the authority to order a new trial “on its own initiative” when the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence (CPLR 4404 [a]), and this Court’s power “is as broad as that of the trial court” … . Although we believe it remains best practice for a party to challenge a verdict upon this basis before the trial court, in light of its superior opportunity to evaluate the proof and credibility of witnesses … , we nonetheless agree that this Court is fully empowered to “order a new trial where the appellant made no motion for that relief in the trial court” … . To the extent that our prior decisions have suggested otherwise, they should no longer be followed … . Fitzpatrick v Tvetenstrand, 2024 NY Slip Op 01956, Third Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: In this decision, the Third Department joined the other departments in holding that a plaintiff need not make a motion to set aside the verdict to preserve an “against the weight of the evidence” argument on appeal.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER; THE JURY’S REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S “EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE” DEFENSE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REDUCED; THE STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s murder conviction to manslaughter first degree, over an extensive dissent, determined the jury’s determination that defendant failed to prove he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]), was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who suffered from mental illness, had been involuntarily committed to to a medical facility. The victim, who was beaten and strangled, allegedly sexually assaulted defendant in the shower. The dissent argued defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence of defendant’s mental illness in support of the motion to suppress statements defendant made to a detective:

… [W]e find that the jury’s determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]) when he killed the victim was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s state of mind is a subjective question, and the existence of a reasonable excuse is an objective question … . The first element, the “subjective element[,] ‘focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance'” … . The second element requires an objective determination as to whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, and “[w]hether such a reasonable explanation or excuse exists must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, ‘however inaccurate that perception may have been'” … .

From the dissent:

At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of the detective who had interviewed the defendant. The defense did not present any evidence. Defense counsel was well aware of the … voluminous psychiatric documentation concerning the defendant’s mental illness. However, defense counsel failed to move to admit into evidence any of these records. Rather, in support of the motion to suppress, defense counsel merely presented arguments that the defendant’s mental state at the time that the Miranda warnings were administered precluded the admissibility of his statements to the detective. People v Andrews, 2024 NY Slip Op 01935, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Here, the appellate court determined the jury’s rejection of defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” affirmative defense was against the weight of the evidence. The murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter first degree.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION” OR “SPECIFIC CAUSATION” FRYE CRITERIA IN THIS MOLD-INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert did not offer sufficient proof plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold. Neither the “general causation” nor “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, were met:

General causation cannot be established through studies showing only a “risk” or “association” between mold exposure and the development of certain medical conditions … . The defendants’ expert relied on a position paper of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published in 2006 … , that controverts the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of causation … . The scientific literature and testimony proffered by the plaintiff’s expert was insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of general causation has gained general acceptance in the scientific community … . …

… [T]he method used by [plaintiff’s] expert to establish specific causation did not satisfy Frye. … [I]t is not enough for a plaintiff’s expert to testify that “exposure to a toxin is ‘excessive’ or ‘far more’ than others,” or to offer testimony “that merely links a toxin to a disease or ‘work[s] backwards from reported symptoms to divine an otherwise unknown concentration’ of a toxin” … . “… [W]e have never dispensed with a plaintiff’s burden to establish sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . “At a minimum, . . . there must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of th[e] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01904, Second Dept 4–10-24

Practice Point: Here the expert evidence purporting to demonstrate plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold did not satisfy the “general causation” or “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, criteria explained.

 

,

ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A MANUAL BODY-CAVITY SEARCH MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT; THE DRUGS REMOVED FROM DEFENDANT’S BODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the drugs were removed from defendant’s body during a manual body-cavity search, which requires a warrant specifically allowing it absent exigent circumstances. The warrant allowing the search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search and no exigent circumstances were alleged. The drugs should have been suppressed:

“There are three distinct and increasingly intrusive types of bodily examinations undertaken by law enforcement after certain arrests”; namely, a strip search, a visual body cavity inspection, and a manual body cavity search … . As relevant here, “[a] ‘strip search’ requires the arrestee to disrobe so that a police officer can visually inspect the person’s body” … , whereas “a visual body cavity inspection involves the inspection of the subject’s anal or genital areas without any physical contact by the officer and, in contrast, a manual body cavity search includes some degree of touching or probing of a body cavity that causes a physical intrusion beyond the body’s surface” … . * * *

Here, the search warrant that had been previously obtained authorized the search of defendant’s person but did not authorize a manual body cavity search. Notably, the warrant application made no such request. Moreover, although exigent circumstances bypassing the warrant requirement may be shown where “the drugs were in imminent danger of being destroyed, disseminated or lost, or that defendant was in medical distress” .. , no such showing has been made here. People v Chase, 2024 NY Slip Op 01837, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point; Here there were no exigent circumstances and the warrant permitting a search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search. The drugs removed from defendant’s person during a manual body-cavity search should have been suppressed.

 

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