You are here: / Evidence
, ,

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.

 

,

THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of her slip and fall was fatal to the lawsuit. Evidence that the floor was shiny or slippery was not enough to survive a summary judgment motion:

The plaintiff expressly testified that she did not know what caused her to fall … , nor did she recall observing garbage or liquid on the floor, either before or after her fall … .

… The plaintiff’s affidavit and additional portions of her deposition testimony submitted in opposition to the [summary judgment] motion merely confirmed that she fell as a result of a slippery substance that she could not identify. To the extent that the plaintiff’s two witnesses identified the cause of the fall in their affidavits without engaging in speculation … , this evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although each witness averred that the plaintiff’s fall may have been caused by the “shiny” and “slippery” nature of the floor, “the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery,” without more, “does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … . Alvarez v Staten Is. R.T. Operating Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01695, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s inability to identify the slippery substance which caused the fall required summary judgment in defendant’s favor. The fact that a floor is shiny or slippery is not enough. The relevant proof requirements are laid out in detail.

 

, , , ,

A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined: (1) an advisory pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is not appealable, and (2) the motion to limit the evidence of the valuation of the LLC to $2,450,000, although couched as a motion in limine, was actually an untimely summary judgment motion:

“[A]n order, made in advance of trial, which merely determines the admissibility of [*2]evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s motion which sought, in effect, to set the minimum value of the LLC at $2,450,000 and preclude any evidence of a lower value, while styled as a motion in limine, was the functional equivalent of an untimely motion for partial summary judgment determining that the value of the LLC was at least $2,450,000 … . “[A] motion in limine is an inappropriate substitute for a motion for summary judgment” … , and “in the absence of any showing of good cause for the late filing of such a motion,” should not have been considered … . Desantis v Desantis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01699, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling.

Practice Point: The motion in limine seeking to set a limit on the value of an LLC in this divorce proceeding was actually an untimely motion for summary judgment which should not have been considered.

 

, , , ,

IT WAS ALLEGEDLY EVIDENT FROM THE EMPLOYEE’S JOB APPLICATION THAT HE HAD BEEN IN PRISON; THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action against defendant LLC stemming from an altercation between plaintiff and the LLC’s employee (McIntosh) should not have been dismissed. It was allegedly evident from McIntosh’s employment application that he had been in prison:

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the LLC “should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . It is well settled that “an employer has a duty to investigate a prospective employee when it knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate that prospective employee” … . McIntosh’s handwritten job application provided facts that should have led the LLC to investigate, as he indicated that he worked at the address of a state prison, he earned a “stipend” instead of the typical hourly wage, and one of his supervisors was a corrections officer, or “C.O.” Although “the depth of inquiry prior to hiring, irrespective of convictions, may vary in reasonable proportion to the responsibilities of the proposed employment,” the record shows that the LLC made no effort to investigate … . Its owner-witness admitted that no background check was performed. She did not know whether a restaurant manager called McIntosh’s past employers, and she had no knowledge of his criminal background, as would have been revealed by a call to the past employer … . Contrary to the LLC’s contention, the Correction Law does not prohibit consideration of a job applicant’s prior convictions, but instead provides a balancing test to determine whether there was a “direct relationship between” a prior offense and the job or whether the employment “would involve an unreasonable risk . . . to the safety or welfare of . . . the general public” (Correction Law §§ 752[1]- Darbeau v 136 W. 3rd St., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01672, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Where an applicant’s job application indicates the applicant had been incarcerated, an employer’s failure to investigate may support a negligent hiring and supervision cause of action. The Correction Law does not prohibit an inquiry into prior convictions.

 

, , , , ,

SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the demand for disclosure of SM’s medical records was properly denied because SM had not waived the physician-patient privilege, but the request for an in camera review of the records for nonmedical information should have been granted. SM has been treated by defendant New York City Health + Hospital/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH) shortly before SM stabbed infant plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged NYCHH should have reported SM and detained her or taken some other measures to protect infant plaintiff:

Infant plaintiff and her father allege that NYCHH’s employees negligently treated SM when she presented to the hospital on April 26 and April 27, 2016, shortly before she stabbed the infant plaintiff and brother, resulting in the brother’s death. They allege that SM had a history of mental illness for which she had been treated by NYCHH on “scores of previous occasions,” and that NYCHH failed to detain SM, call a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, or “take any other action to protect” the infant plaintiff. SM, who is currently incarcerated, has not waived the physician-patient privilege and is believed to be unable or unwilling to do so.

Supreme Court properly determined that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) does not apply to allow disclosure of SM’s hospital records in the interests of justice, absent SM’s consent or express or implied waiver of the physician-patient privilege provided by CPLR 4504, 4507 … . … Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ alternative request for in camera review to determine whether the records include information of a nonmedical nature, such as observations of SM’s conduct, language, and appearance and factual matters, which is subject to disclosure … . S.M. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01689, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Although medical records are protected from disclosure by the patient-physician privilege, relevant nonmedical, factual information in the records may be disclosed pursuant to an in camera review.

 

,

NEGLECT FINDINGS BASED ON MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND INADEQUATE SHELTER, EDUCATION, HYGIENE OR CLOTHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, in a fact-specific decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined the proof did not support the finding mother neglected the child by providing inadequate shelter, education, hygiene or clothing. In addition, the finding mother neglected the child based on mental illness was not proven. The decision explains the level of proof needed for finding neglect in these contexts:

… [T]he Family Court Act defines a neglected child as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the child’s] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, [or] shelter . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). The statute also provides that a parent is responsible for educational neglect when, under the same requisite conditions, the parent fails to supply the child with “adequate . . . education in accordance with the provisions of [the compulsory education part of Education Law article 65] . . . notwithstanding the efforts of the school district or local educational agency and child protective agency to ameliorate such alleged failure prior to the filing of the petition” … .

“The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence” (… see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). “First, there must be ‘proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child’ ” … . “In order for danger to be ‘imminent,’ it must be ‘near or impending, not merely possible’ ” … . “This prerequisite to a finding of neglect ensures that the Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, will focus on serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior” … . “Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances . . . Critically, however, the statutory test is minimum degree of care—not maximum, not best, not ideal—and the failure must be actual, not threatened” … .Matter of Justice H.M. (Julia S.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01653, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: The criteria for a neglect finding are explained in some depth. Here the proof did not support a finding of neglect based on mother’s mental illness or inadequate shelter, education, hygiene or clothing.

 

,

THE TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITOUS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial testimony rendered the count duplicitous:

“Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . Here, count 2 of the indictment charged defendant with sexual abuse in the first degree regarding an alleged instance, occurring between July 2012 and January 2013, in which she subjected the victim to sexual contact when he was less than 11 years old. At trial, however, the victim testified to multiple acts of sexual contact during the relevant time frame, any one of which could serve as the sexual contact necessary to prove defendant’s guilt of count 2.

Because each act of alleged sexual contact constitutes “a separate and distinct offense” … , the victim’s testimony that numerous such acts occurred during the relevant time frame rendered count 2 of the indictment duplicitous. Indeed, ” ‘it is impossible to verify that each member of the jury convicted defendant for the same criminal act’ ” in connection with count 2 … . People v Zona, 2024 NY Slip Op 01652, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: If the indictment charges one incident during the described time-frame and the trial testimony reveals more than one incident, it is impossible to know whether the jury reached a unanimous verdict on any one incident.

 

, , ,

A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the judge improperly refused to consider evidence submitted by defendants in opposition to claimant’s summary judgment motion citing the law of the case doctrine. The judge’s “law of the case” ruling, however, was based on her prior ruling on a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case with respect to a subsequent summary judgment motion:

It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … , and that a court’s order denying a motion to dismiss is “addressed to the sufficiency of the pleadings” and does not “establish the law of the case for the purpose of” motions for summary judgment … . We thus agree with defendants that the court erred in refusing to consider defendants’ proof in opposition to the motion … . Riley v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01647, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: A ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case for a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

A SIROIS HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER WITNESSES ARE UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF INTIMIDATION IS A MATERIAL STAGE OF A TRIAL; DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have conducted the Sirois hearing, which is a material stage of a trial, in the absence of defendant and defense counsel. The hearing determined two witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Defense counsel was allowed to submit questions to be posed during the hearing:

… [A] new trial is warranted with respect to the criminal possession of a weapon count because he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (… see generally CPL 260.20). During the suppression hearing, allegations were made that defendant, or people acting at his behest, had threatened two witnesses to the underlying incident about testifying against defendant. The People, therefore, requested a Sirois hearing and sought a determination that the witnesses had been made constructively unavailable to testify at trial by threats attributable to defendant, allowing them to introduce at trial statements made by the witnesses that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay … . * * *

The court erred in conducting the Sirois hearing without defendant or defense counsel present. “[A] defendant’s absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on [their] ability to defend the charges against [them] and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . A “[d]efendant [is] entitled to confront the witness[es] against [them] at [such a] hearing and also to be present so that [the defendant can] advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness[es]’ testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . People v Steele, 2024 NY Slip Op 01642, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point; Here defendant and defense counsel were excluded from the Sirois hearing which determined two prosecution witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Because the hearing is a material stage of the trial, defendant must be present. Allowing defense counsel to submit written questions was insufficient. A new trial was required.

 

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