You are here: / Evidence
,

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.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL TURNED OVER TO DEFENDANT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE AFFECTED HIS DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PLEA OFFER TO ACCEPT AND WHETHER TO MOVE TO DISMISS CERTAIN CHARGES; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea. After the plea a new prosecutor turned over Brady material which had not been disclosed prior to the plea. Under the facts of the case, defendant’s awareness of the Brady material may have affected his decision to plead guilty to criminal possession of a weapon, a C felony. Therefore a hearing on the 440 motion should have been held:

… [T]he [Brady] evidence may have had an impact on the other charges that may have had an effect on what defendant was allowed to plead to — specifically, the attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree counts … . … [T]hese charges meant that because defendant was indicted with a class B armed felony offense, his plea of guilty was required to be at least to a class C violent felony offense (see CPL 220.10 [5] [d] [i]). The lowest charge that satisfied this requirement was criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, meaning that, based on the evidence before defendant at the time of his plea and sentencing, this was the most favorable charge that he could obtain — a point acknowledged at sentencing. Assuming, without deciding, that such evidence constituted Brady materials that were not disclosed, and further recognizing that the gravamen of the People’s main argument suggests that this evidence does impact the other charges against defendant, the record is unclear what impact the disclosure of this evidence may have had on defendant’s decision to accept or reject the plea offer — particularly in the context of CPL 220.10 (5) (d) (i) and a potential motion to dismiss certain charges (see CPL 245.25 [2]; see also CPL 440.10 [1] [b], [h] … ). Therefore, under the unique circumstances of this case … it was an error for County Court to decide the motion without an evidentiary hearing … . People v Harries, 2024 NY Slip Op 01843, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Where the Brady material turned over to the defendant after he pled guilty may have affected his decisions about what plea offer to accept and whether to move to dismiss certain charges, defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

 

, , ,

SERVICE OF THE ORDER APPEALED FROM BY EMAIL DOES NOT START THE TIME TO TAKE AN APPEAL; FATHER’S REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC AND WRITTEN CONTACT WITH HIS DAUGHTER PROPERLY DENIED; FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR PREDATORY SEXUAL BEHAVIOR INVOLVING A CHILD ABOUT THE SAME AGE AS HIS DAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming Family Court’s denial of father’s request for telephonic and written contact with his daughter, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined Family Court did not abuse its discretion. Father is incarcerated after pleading guilty to predatory sexual assault against a child, possessing a sexual performance by a child, promoting a sexual performance by a child and use of a child in a sexual performance. The victim of father’s crimes was about the same age as father’s daughter and was acquainted with father’s daughter. The Third Department noted that the time for perfecting father’s appeal never started to run because the notice of the entry of the order appealed from was sent to father by email, which is not an accepted method of service:

… “[A]s the father was served the order by the court via email, which is not a method provided for in Family Court Act § 1113, and there is no indication that he was served by any of the methods authorized by the statute, we conclude that the time to take an appeal did not begin to run and that it cannot be said that the father’s appeal is untimely” … . * * *

Family Court observed that the father pleaded guilty to sex offenses relating to a victim who was about the same age as the child at the time of the hearing — and who was, we note, acquainted with the child — and the father’s testimony gave no reason to believe that he appreciated how his actions might have impacted the child. Family Court further credited the mother’s testimony that she had given the child all of the father’s letters after screening them for inappropriate content, and that the child had simply decided, without any interference from the mother, not to respond to them. The child was almost 13 years old at the time of the hearing and, as such, her apparent desire not to communicate with the father was entitled to some weight in assessing her best interests … . We are satisfied that, according deference to Family Court’s assessment of witness credibility, the foregoing constitutes a sound and substantial basis in the record for the determination that the presumption favoring visitation with a noncustodial parent had been rebutted and that the best interests of the child would be served by limiting contact with the father to written correspondence to which the child was not required to respond … . Matter of Robert M. v Barbara L., 2024 NY Slip Op 01847, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Service of an order by email does not start the 30-day period for taking an appeal of the order.

Practice Point: Family Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the incarcerated father’s request for telephonic and written contact with his daughter. Father had pled guilty to predatory sexual behavior involving a victim about the same age as his daughter and with whom his daughter was acquainted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY FATHER, THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS PRESENT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the admissible evidence did not support the finding that father neglected the child based on an act of domestic violence. Mother’s 911 call constituted admissible evidence of the domestic violence. But, although evidence the child was present apparently existed, it was never admitted in evidence:

A recording of a 911 call made by the mother, which was admitted into evidence without objection, was the only admissible evidence offered in support of the petition. During this call, the mother told the 911 operator that the father was harassing her and threatening her, that there were weapons in the house, including knives and guns, and that she was in fear for her life. However, no evidence was admitted in support of ACS’s [Administration of Children’s Services’] position that the children observed, were aware of, or were in close proximity to the domestic violence, and that their physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired … . While ACS contends that the redacted ACS progress notes were admitted into evidence, and contain the children’s out-of court-statements demonstrating the children were aware of and heard the domestic violence, the progress notes, although marked for identification at the virtual hybrid hearing, were never entered into evidence, and therefore, cannot be considered. Thus, ACS failed to establish that the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired by the father’s acts of violence toward the mother … . Matter of Easton J. (Courtney J.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01810, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: To find neglect based on an act of domestic violence by father against mother there must be admissible evidence the child was present.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HIS OWN LIABILTY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DEEMED PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined that although defendant raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent, defendant did not raise a question of fact about the defendant-driver’s liability. In addition, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been deemed premature:

… [T]he defendants submitted an affidavit from the defendant driver, in which he stated that he was “not fully responsible” for the accident. The defendant driver also averred that the traffic light had turned green and that the plaintiff had moved forward and then suddenly stopped, causing the defendant driver to strike the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle despite his efforts to stop his vehicle. This evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident, thereby supporting the denial of that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence … . However, since the defendants’ evidence related only to the plaintiff’s comparative fault, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging negligent operation of a motor vehicle … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiff’s motion was premature. “[W]hile a party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in advance of a summary judgment determination, [a] party contending that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” … . Here, the defendants had personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and their mere hope or speculation that evidence might be uncovered during discovery was an insufficient basis for denying the plaintiff’s motion …. Martin v Copado-Esquivel, 2024 NY Slip Op 01804, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, the fact that defendant raises a question of fact about plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not preclude granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability.

Practice Point: Here, where the facts of the rear-end collision were within defendant’s personal knowledge, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been dismissed as premature.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the original loan document was not provided and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

A plaintiff moving for leave to enter a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original home equity line of credit agreement … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants failed to state when the search for the credit agreement occurred, did not identify who conducted the search for the credit agreement, or explain when or how the credit agreement was lost … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Morton, 2024 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, in moving for a default judgment the bank did not provide the original loan document and did not provide a sufficient lost note affidavit. The motion should have been denied, criteria explained.

 

,

THE VICTIM DIED BY STRANGULATION; THE DEFENSE WAS DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO KILL; THE VICTIM’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THE DEFENDANT’S, AS OPPOSED TO THE VICTIM’S, STATE OF MIND; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the victim’s hearsay statements about domestic violence should not have been admitted. There was no applicable exception the the hearsay rule and Molineux evidence of prior bad acts must be in admissible form. The victim died of strangulation. The defense argued defendant did not intend to kill the victim, his girlfriend:

… [T]he admission into evidence of prior statements of the victim regarding instances of domestic violence involving the defendant as proof of murder in the second degree, was error which may not be deemed harmless. This hearsay evidence was admitted, purportedly not for its truth, but to establish the victim’s state of mind, the nature of the parties’ relationship, the defendant’s motive and intent, and the absence of an accident. The victim’s state of mind may be an issue in certain circumstances, warranting the admission of hearsay evidence on that issue pursuant to a recognized hearsay exception … , but it was not at issue in this case. Rather, the evidence was used to establish the defendant’s state of mind, based upon the victim’s characterization of the defendant’s conduct and the acceptance of that characterization for its truth. In People v Brooks (31 NY3d 939, 942), the Court of Appeals ruled that a “witness’s testimony as to the victim’s statement that defendant had previously threatened her constituted double hearsay and was not properly admitted pursuant to any exceptions to the hearsay rule. . . . Nor is there any blanket hearsay exception providing for use of such statements as ‘background’ in domestic violence prosecutions” (citation omitted). Assuming arguendo that evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts was admissible under People v Molineux (168 NY 264]) and its progeny, “there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay . . . . [S]uch evidence must still be in admissible form” … . This purported evidence of the defendant’s state of mind, in this case where intent became the primary issue, was not in admissible form. Thus, the admission of that evidence was error. The error cannot be deemed harmless because the evidence of the defendant’s intent was not overwhelming … . People v Rivers, 2024 NY Slip Op 01731, Second Dept 3-17-24

Practice Point: Here the murder victim’s hearsay statements about domestic violence were allowed in evidence to show the defendant’s, not the victim’s, state of mind. The statements were not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. The error was not harmless because the defendant argued he did not intend to kill the victim (who died by strangulation).

 

, ,

STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING” THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF A VEHICLE CAN BE CHARGED TO THE JURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, determined the judge should not have charged the jury with the automobile presumption which ascribes possession of contraband inside a vehicle to the occupants of the vehicle. The evidence did not support the allegation that defendant “occupied” the vehicle. He was seen standing outside the vehicle and reaching inside through an open window. In addition the police officers should have been allowed to narrate the video saying the defendant could be seen inside the vehicle and reaching into the back seat:

… [T]he People admitted a surveillance video, which showed that the defendant briefly leaned his upper body through the open rear passenger side door of the Lincoln Navigator while standing on the vehicle’s running board. However, the video reflected that the defendant never lifted his feet from the running board to climb into the Lincoln Navigator or take a seat inside the vehicle … . Under the circumstances presented, the People’s contention that the defendant “occup[ied]” the vehicle within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.15(3) is without merit. … Supreme Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the automobile presumption. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01728, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: The automobile presumption of possession of the contents of a vehicle by the occupants of the vehicle does not apply to a person standing outside a vehicle and reaching inside through a window.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT ELIMINATE TRIABLE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ABUSIVE PROPENSITIES; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the negligent hiring and negligent supervision causes of action against defendant school stemming from a teacher’s alleged abuse of plaintiff-student should not have been dismissed. There was a question of fact about whether the school district had constructive notice of the teacher’s abusive propensities:

… [G]iven the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over a three-year period, and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse … . Additionally, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether their supervision of the teacher or the plaintiff was not negligent, in light of, among other things, the teacher was on “probationary” status during the relevant period, the special education lessons during which the alleged abuse occurred were one-on-one and behind closed doors, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that the school principal “never came in” or “checked” on him during the lessons, and only a single observation report from Columbus Avenue Elementary School is available in the teacher’s employment file during the relevant period. MCVAWCD-DOE v Columbus Ave. Elementary Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 01703, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant school did not eliminate questions of fact about whether it had constructive notice of the teacher’s abusive propensities in this Child Victims Act case. The alleged abuse took place often behind closed doors when the teacher, who was on probation, was alone with the plaintiff.

 

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