You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department majority affirmed defendant’s conviction, but a two-justice dissent argument defense counsel allowed prejudicial evidence to come in without any strategic justification:

From the dissent:

Meaningful representation is “reasonable competence, not perfect representation” … . “However it is elementary that the right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense . . . and who is familiar with, and able to employ at trial basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … . “Whether counsel has adequately performed these functions is necessarily a question of degree, in which cumulative errors particularly on basic points essential to the defense, are often found to be determinative” … .

Here, when the People sought to introduce the order of protection in evidence, defense counsel failed to seek removal of the portion of that order stating the crimes for which defendant had previously been convicted, despite the fact that Supreme Court previously denied the People’s Sandoval application. Moreover, as a direct result of defense counsel’s open-ended questions, a witness stated during cross-examination that defendant was previously incarcerated. Most critically, however, defense counsel’s open-ended questioning of the victim during cross-examination revealed that defendant had, on a prior occasion, broken into her home through the basement window. In this prosecution for, inter alia, burglary in the first degree, we cannot foresee evidence being more prejudicial than testimony elicited by his own counsel that defendant previously committed the same criminal act against the same victim. People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 00711, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: The majority affirmed, but two dissenting judges argued defense counsel unnecessarily put evidence which was highly prejudicial to his client before the jury.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INVENTORY LIST WAS CREATED FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH WAS A VALID “INVENTORY SEARCH” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not prove the search of a car which turned up a firearm and marijuana was a valid “inventory search:”

The People failed to carry their initial burden of establishing a valid inventory search of defendant’s vehicle. Court of Appeals precedent “requires that a police officer prepare a meaningful inventory of the contents of an accused’s car” … . Although the People failed to establish that the officers prepared the prescribed inventory search form, such failure is considered a mere “technical defect” and “is not fatal to the establishment of a valid search as long as (1) the search, in accordance with the ‘standardized procedure,’ is designed to produce an inventory and (2) the search results are fully recorded in a usable format” … . Here, the People failed on this latter point, since there was no evidence offered to show that the officers created the “hallmark of an inventory search: a meaningful inventory list” … . * * *

Ultimately, no form, list, or usable record was produced before the hearing court, and there is otherwise no basis on which to conclude that an inventory list or record of the search results was ever created, either during the search or after its completion. People v Cabrera, 2024 NY Slip Op 00685, First Dept 2-8-24

Practice Point: In order to prove items were seized from a car pursuant to a valid “inventory search,” some sort of inventory list must have been created during the search.

 

, , ,

RE-READING THE ORIGINAL JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONFUSION EXPRESSED IN THE NOTE FROM THE JURY; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER A WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the judge’s response to a jury note was inadequate and the judge did not make the required initial determination that a witness was qualified to offer expert-opinion evidence on the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). The jury wanted to know whether a guilty verdict required that the three alleged acts of sexual abuse take place within the three-month period described in the indictment. The answer was “es,” but the judge merely re-read the original charge about which the jury was confused. With respect to the CSAAS witness, the judge left it up to the jury to decide whether she was qualified as an expert:

… [T]he jury had already been provided with a complete written copy of the court’s original instructions for its reference during deliberations. Under these circumstances, County Court’s response to the jury’s inquiry was not meaningful, as it did nothing to clarify the very specific point on which the jury was confused. “[I]n our view, this is one of those rare cases where interest of justice review is warranted. Where the court fails to give information requested upon a vital point no appellate court may disregard the error” … . * * *

Although “[t]he court is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert before permitting [expert] testimony” … , “the trial court is vested with the initial responsibility of evaluating whether an expert possesses the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, County Court abdicated its responsibility to make the initial determination as to whether [the witness] qualified as an expert. People v Goff, 2024 NY Slip Op 00656, Third Dept 2-8-24

Practice Point: A response to a jury note must clarify the confusion expressed in the note. Here, re-reading the original instruction was not sufficient.

Practice Point: Although a judge is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert, the judge must make the initial determination whether the witness is qualified to offer reliable testimony.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO EXPRESSED SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT BEING ABLE SERVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE HER ULTIMATE STATEMENT SHE COULD DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SERVE; THE NEW CPL ARTICLE 245 DISCOVERY STATUTES IMPOSE NEW BURDENS ON THE PEOPLE ENCOMPASSING ROSARIO AND BRADY MATERIAL AND EXTENDING TO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE PEOPLE’S POSSESSION, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENSE CAN ACCESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, offered important, substantial discussions of (1) how to handle a juror who expresses doubt about the ability to serve on the jury, and (2) the new, much broader and far-reaching disclosure requirements imposed upon the People by the CPL Article 245. The juror expressed doubt about her ability to serve because of her family obligations, her indecisiveness and her inability to follow the orders and instructions of the court. Ultimately when asked if she thought she could do what is necessary to be a juror, she said “yes.” The Fourth Department held the defense challenge to the juror should not have been denied. On the CPL Article 245 issue, the Fourth Department explained that the statute goes far beyond the old, pre-statute, criteria for turning over Rosario and Brady material, to include collecting and turning over discovery from agencies outside the prosecutor’s office, even if the defendant could gain access to those that discovery him or herself: The Fourth Department held the prosecutor committed numerous violations of CPL Article 245 and left it to the judge in the next trial to impose sanctions:

… [T]he prospective juror never stated, unequivocally or otherwise, that she would follow the court’s instructions and apply the law to the facts. Nor did she state that her child care concerns had been alleviated such that she could devote her undivided attention to the trial.

Just as a “general statement of impartiality that does not explicitly address the specific cause of the preexisting bias is not sufficient” … , a general statement from a prospective juror that they can do what it takes to be a juror is not sufficient to rehabilitate the prospective juror where, as here, the prospective juror had previously offered specific reasons for being unable to serve impartially. * * *

Although transcripts that are not in the People’s possession and control are not subject to Brady and Rosario disclosure requirements … , that fact is of no moment for purposes of CPL 245.20. Even where documents are “beyond the prosecutor’s control under Rosario and constructive possession under CPL 245.20 (2), the presumption of openness, … the duty to maintain the flow of information … , the continuing duty to disclose … , and, perhaps most importantly, the goals of article 245 require that when the prosecutor becomes aware [after making the requisite reasonable inquiries] that an agency outside their control holds information that relates to the subject matter of the case, best practice dictates that the People take steps . . . to obtain those records notwithstanding the fact [that] the information may be available to the defendant by equivalent process” … . People v Heverly, 2024 NY Slip Op 00524, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point; A juror who expresses serious doubts about being able to serve, doubts which are not addressed by further questioning, should be excluded, even if the juror ultimately states he or she can do what is necessary to serve.

Practice Point: CPL Article 245 has drastically expanded the burden on the People to timely turn over discovery, including Rosario and Brady material and documents which are not in the People’s possession, even where the defense also has access to those documents. The is an important discussion of the new criminal discovery rules which should be required reading for defense counsel, prosecutors and judges.

 

,

AN OFFICER’S OBSERVATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR TOO CLOSELY (A TRAFFIC INFRACTION) PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A TRAFFIC STOP, EVEN IF THERE WERE OTHER MOTIVATIONS FOR THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress in this traffic stop case should not have been granted. The traffic stop was based upon the deputy sheriff’s observation of defendant’s car less than one car length from the car in front while both cars were going 65 mph, which constitutes a traffic infraction (following too closely). The Fourth Department noted that a traffic infraction provides probable cause for traffic stop, even if the officer has another motive for the stop (apparently the case here):

The deputy, having personally observed defendant violate Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), thus had probable cause to stop defendant’s vehicle … .

… [T]o the extent the court’s decision also found the stop unlawful on the basis that it was pretextual, that was error. It is well settled that ” ‘where a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile has committed a traffic violation, a stop does not violate [the state or federal constitutions, and] . . . neither the primary motivation of the officer nor a determination of what a reasonable traffic officer would have done under the circumstances is relevant’ ” … . In light of the deputy having personally observed defendant commit a traffic violation, the stop was properly based upon probable cause, and the deputy’s other motivations in stopping the vehicle, if any, were irrelevant to determining whether the stop was lawful … . People v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: If a police officer observes a driver commit a traffic infraction (here following too closely), the officer has probable cause to stop the car, even if the officer has other motivations for the stop.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO READ THE NOTE FROM THE JURY VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by paraphrasing the note from the jury instead of reading it verbatim:

The jury note … stated … “[w]e, the Jury, request: to hear the read-back of [a restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant. She indicates that she had seen him 2 times while she was working at the counter, and multiple times while she was not at the counter but through the security camera play-back. We wish to hear this portion read back. We also request to hear the portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [a shooter shown in the surveillance video] as the defendant to the police” … . The court did not read the note aloud verbatim and the record does not reflect that the court showed the note to the parties. Rather, the record reflects that the court addressed the note before counsel and the jury by stating, “the readback that you have requested of [the restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant will now be read back for you along with the second portion of that which reads, ‘We also request to hear that portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [the shooter] as the defendant to the police.’ We’ll read both those portions.” The court failed to read the second and third sentences contained within the jury note. We conclude that by improperly paraphrasing the jury note, the court failed to give meaningful notice of the note … . People v Crawford, 2024 NY Slip Op 00528, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read the note from the jury verbatim was deemed a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of a murder conviction.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT-DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS VEHICLE-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver (Medina) raised a question of fact about whether he was negligent in this vehicle-bicycle collision case. Although plaintiff bicyclist made out a prima facie case, defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment motion:

… [P]laintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, his affidavit, which demonstrated that Medina was negligent in attempting to make a left turn at the intersection when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 …). In opposition, however, the defendants raised triable issues of fact through the submission of Medina’s affidavit. Medina averred that he waited until traffic was clear before turning left with his left-turn indicator activated and a green traffic light in his favor. According to Medina, as he was making the turn, he observed a cyclist traveling west on Myrtle Avenue at a high rate of speed. Medina averred that he immediately brought his vehicle to a stop, but the cyclist was unable to stop due to his speed and collided with Medina’s vehicle. Medina’s affidavit was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether Medina was negligent in the happening of the accident  … . Amancio-Gonzalez v Medina, 2024 NY Slip Op 00400, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point; It is possible that a driver can collide with a bicyclist and not be negligent.

 

, , ,

SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE PRIOR MOTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, held that the bank violated the prohibition of successive summary judgment motions:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit any newly discovered evidence on the subject motion that could not have been submitted on either of its prior two motions, and did not demonstrate sufficient cause why the third motion should have been entertained … . Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kelly, 2024 NY Slip Op 00448, First Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Unless based on new evidence not available for a prior motion, successive summary judgment motions should not be entertained by the court.

 

, , ,

DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON PRIOR ARRESTS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR A WEAPON WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court in this Article 78 proceeding, determined that the respondent-judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for a pistol permit without a hearing was arbitrary and capricious. Although petitioner had prior arrests, none involved violence or a weapon:

Although the respondent was entitled to consider the petitioner’s prior arrests, the record reflects, among other things, that none of the petitioner’s arrests involved violent crimes or a weapon. The record also contains the petitioner’s explanation of the circumstances surrounding his prior arrests; his activities since, which include employment, home ownership, charitable work, and abstinence from alcohol; evidence of the petitioner’s having successfully completed a firearms course; and the opinion of a psychologist that the petitioner has no current risk factors that renders him unsuitable to own and carry a firearm. Further, based upon the record before us, it is apparent that the respondent did not give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the stated objections to his pistol permit application … .

Accordingly, we annul the determination denying the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit and remit the matter to the respondent to afford the petitioner the opportunity to respond to the stated objections to his pistol permit application at a hearing, after which the respondent shall make a new determination of the petitioner’s application. In remitting this matter to the respondent for a new determination, we express no opinion as to the merits of the new determination. Matter of Maher v Hyun Chin Kim, 2024 NY Slip Op 00425, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Although prior arrests which were not violence- or weapon-related can be considered by the judge re: an application for a pistol permit, the application should not be denied without a hearing allowing the applicant to address the objections to the application.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL (LIABILITY AND DAMAGES) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES WAS RELEVANT TO HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages should have been granted. Plaintiff was crossing a street when she was struck by defendant’s vehicle which was making a left turn across the crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of defendant’s van. Plaintiff’s treating physician opined that the injury was consistent with plaintiff being in front of the van when she was struck. Because the injuries were relevant to the liability aspect of the trial, a unified trial was necessary:

Judges are encouraged to direct a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action to recover damages for personal injuries “where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … . “Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases” … . A unified trial is appropriate where the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries has “an important bearing on the issue of liability” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. The plaintiff and the defendant driver, the only witnesses to the accident, offered conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred, and the plaintiff demonstrated that evidence regarding the nature of her injuries was probative in determining how the accident occurred … . Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 2024 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant’s van in a crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of the van and obtained a defense verdict. Plaintiff’s injuries indicated she was struck by the front of the van. Plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial should have been granted.

 

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