You are here: / Evidence
,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE GUN SHOTS AND THE 911 CALL STATING FOUR BLACK KIDS, ONE WITH A GUN, WERE WALKING AROUND JUSTIFIED APPROACHING DEFENDANT ON THE STREET AND JUSTIFIED PURSUING HIM AND SEARCHING HIM WHEN HE RAN; TWO DISSENTERS NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH THE 911 CALLER’S DESCRIPTION AND ARGUED HIS FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police lawfully approached the defendant on the street, lawfully pursued him when he ran, and lawfully searched him, recovering a handgun. The police had heard gun shots and were aware of a 911 call indicating four Black kids were walking around and one had a gun. The dissenters argued that the police were justified in approaching the defendant but that defendant’s flight did not justify the pursuit and search:

… [T]he officers, when they encountered defendant on the street, had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” … , thereby justifying a common-law approach and inquiry of all four men … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his flight when lawfully approached by the police justified the ensuing pursuit, especially considering the unorthodox manner in which he was running, which, again, was observed before the officers gave chase … . At that point, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant possessed a firearm or was otherwise involved in the shooting that occurred minutes earlier less than a block away. * * *

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant did not match the description provided by the 911 caller of the person the caller said had a gun … . Although defendant was observed walking in the general vicinity of the reported gun shots, that observation does not provide the “requisite reasonable suspicion,” i.e., “in the absence of other objective indicia of criminality that would justify pursuit” … . People v Watkins, 2023 NY Slip Op 05804, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The majority held the police properly approached the defendant on the street based upon hearing gunshots and a 911 call stating four Black kids, one with a gun, were walking around. The majority further held that defendant’s flight justified pursuit and a search of defendant’s person. Two dissenters noted that the defendant did not match the 911 caller’s description and argued his flight alone did not justify the pursuit.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL TRUCK, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT REACTED REASONABLY TO AN EMERGENCY; TWO OTHER CARS HAD ENTERED DEFENDANT’S LANE TO GO AROUND THE TRUCK JUST BEFORE THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff pulled into defendant’s lane of traffic to go around a mail truck. Just prior to the collision with plaintiff two other cars had passed the mail truck by pulling into defendant’s lane, yet plaintiff had not disengaged the cruise control. There was a question of fact whether defendant responded appropriately to the emergency:

A person facing an emergency is “not automatically absolve[d] . . . from liability” … . In determining whether the actions of a driver are reasonable in light of an emergency situation, the factfinder must consider “both the driver’s awareness of the situation and [the driver’s] actions prior to the occurrence of the emergency” … .

Defendant admitted that, after she noticed the mail truck, she observed two motor vehicles pass it by pulling out from behind the truck, crossing completely into the westbound lane, and returning to the eastbound lane of travel, but she nevertheless continued in the westbound lane without deactivating her cruise control. She then saw plaintiff’s vehicle cross over into her lane “possibly to see if there was oncoming traffic” before it reentered the eastbound lane. It was not until that point that plaintiff deactivated her cruise control, which had been set to 45 miles per hour. We conclude that issues of fact exist whether, given her observations, defendant responded reasonably under the circumstances … . Carollo v Solotes, 2023 NY Slip Op 05803, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff entered defendant’s oncoming law to pass a mail truck and collided with defendant. Usually an emergency will absolve a driver of liability. But there was evidence two other cars had pulled into defendant’s lane to pass the mail truck and defendant did not disengage the cruise control. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendant responded reasonably to the emergency.

 

,

MOTHER’S DECLINING HEALTH WAS A FACTOR IN THE COURT’S GRANTING MOTHER’S PETITION TO RECOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN NEAR HER MOTHER IN TENNESSEE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE REFEREE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE EFFECT ON VISITATION WITH FATHER AND MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO SHOW THE CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER CARED FOR OR BETTER EDUCATED IN TENNESSEE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined mother’s petition for sole custody and permission to relocate to Tennessee was properly granted:

... [M]other testified at the hearing that she has been the primary caregiver of the children and that her health has been steadily declining. She further established that the maternal grandmother, who moved to Tennessee in 2021, has provided her with extensive financial assistance, as well as assistance in caring for herself and the children, and that the maternal grandmother would continue to do so if the mother were to relocate closer to the maternal grandmother … . Further, the record establishes that the father has no “accustomed close involvement in the children’s everyday life” … and thus we conclude that the need to “give appropriate weight to . . . the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and [the] child[ren] through suitable visitation arrangements” does not take precedence over the need to give appropriate weight to the necessity for the relocation … .

From the dissent:

… [T]he Referee gave disproportionate weight to certain factors and largely ignored the impact of the move on the children’s future contact with the father despite that factor weighing heavily against relocation, given the distance between Clinton County, New York, where the father resides, and Tennessee … . …

… [M]other did not establish that the children’s lives will be enhanced economically, emotionally, or educationally by the move, even if the move would not diminish them … . The mother offered no testimony that the children would receive a better education in Tennessee, and there was no testimony comparing schools in each location … .

The mother also offered no explanation as to why she and the children would be better cared for in Tennessee by the maternal grandmother—who testified that she works approximately 45 to 50 hours per week at multiple jobs in addition to caring for her son’s newborn child—than in New York by the certified caregiver the mother was approved for but has never utilized … . Matter of Martin v Martin, 2023 NY Slip Op 05893, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here mother’s declining health was a factor granting mother’s petition to relocate near her mother in Tennessee. The dissent argued the referee ignored the impact of the move on the children’s contact with father and mother did not demonstrate the children would be better cared for or better educated in Tennessee.

 

,

THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR A WARRANT BUT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DETAINED UNTIL THE WARRANT WAS PROCURED; BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE OFFICER’S STATEMENT WAS MISLEADING; DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, suppressing the drugs found in defendant’s car and defendant’s related statements, determined the consent to search was not voluntarily given. The officer told the defendant he would be happy to apply for a warrant but defendant would be detained until the warrant was obtained. However, the officer told the defendant, if he consented to the search he would be allowed to leave, even if contraband were found. The officer did not have probable cause to search the car, so his claim he would be happy to procure a warrant was misleading:

… [T]he record establishes that defendant consented to the search of his vehicle with the understanding that, if he refused, the detective would obtain a warrant and search the vehicle anyway, and that in the meantime the vehicle would be detained at the scene. We note that a suspect’s consent to search that is based on threatened action by the police is deemed voluntary only where there are valid legal grounds for the threatened action … . Further, we agree with defendant that the voluntariness of his consent therefore turns on whether the detective could lawfully have obtained a search warrant, which may be issued “only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur” … .

In our view, the detective did not have probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime or that the vehicle contained contraband when defendant consented to the warrantless search, and, thus, the detective’s threat to obtain a search warrant was hollow and misleading. People v Barner, 2023 NY Slip Op 05839, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: If a defendant’s consent to a search is procured by a misleading statement by a police officer, the defendant’s consent is not voluntarily given.

 

,

COUNTY COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE VICTIM WAS NOT CORROBORATED AND DISMISSED THE RAPE COUNTS; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED THE CRITERIA FOR CORROBORATION EVIDENCE AND FOUND IT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE RAPE CHARGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined there was sufficient evidence to corroborate defendant’s confession to having sexual intercourse with the victim. The rape counts of the indictment, therefore, should not have been dismissed:

Where, as here, a defendant has confessed to a crime, he or she “may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission . . . without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed” (CPL 60.50 … ). However, “the minimal statutory corroboration requirement” … “need not establish guilt or every detail of the crime or confession” … and “does not mandate submission of independent evidence of every component of the crime charged” … . Rather, the corroboration requirement is satisfied by “some proof, of whatever weight, that a crime was committed by someone” … . Such proof “may be either direct or circumstantial and does not even have to connect the defendant to the crime” … . “The confession itself provides the means for understanding the circumstances of the transaction” … , and the additional proof required “may be found in the presence of [the] defendant at the scene of the crime, his [or her] guilty appearance afterward, or other circumstances supporting an inference of guilt” … . * * *

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must … , the People are entitled — at this juncture — to the inference of guilt that may be drawn from the victim’s physical injuries … . Stated differently, if the victim’s injuries could be consistent with sexual intercourse, then the People are entitled to the benefit of that inference. Further corroboration of defendant’s admission of sexual intercourse may, in our view, be found in his and the victim’s respective — yet consistent — timelines of the events. Although the victim admittedly did not testify that she and defendant engaged in sexual intercourse, defendant’s and the victim’s descriptions of the physical acts performed otherwise were consistent, and the brief period of time during which defendant admitted that he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim — lasting for perhaps three minutes — was entirely consistent with the victim’s testimony that she lost consciousness for approximately 2 to 10 minutes, before awakening to again discover defendant performing oral sex on her. People v Hart, 2023 NY Slip Op 05763, Third Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: Here the victim did not allege sexual intercourse but the defendant confessed to having sex with her. County Court dismissed the rape counts finding the confession was not corroborated. The Third Department explained the criteria for corroboration evidence and found it sufficient to support the rape counts.

 

, ,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED PRIMARILY UPON INCREASED TRAVEL TIME BECAUSE OF MOTHER’S MOVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MAJORITY NOTED MANY REASONING ERRORS AND ORDERED A NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT) ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined father’s petition for a modification of the custody arrangement based upon mother’s move and the consequent increase in travel times should not have been dismissed. The matter was sent back for a new fact-finding hearing before a different judge:

Applying the correct standard at this procedural stage — providing the father the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all credibility questions in his favor … — the father’s proof sufficiently established that, since the entry of the 2012 order, the mother had moved to a different county, which move significantly increased the time and distance required to effectuate custodial exchanges, and that, in the nine years since said order, the mother routinely refused to agree to holiday parenting time for the father. Consequently, the father demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss … . Matter of Shayne FF. v Julie GG., 2023 NY Slip Op 05767, Third Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: Increased travel time because of mother’s move supported father’s petition for a modification of custody. The majority found many reasoning errors and ordered a new hearing before a different judge. A two-justice dissent argued the petition was properly dismissed.

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ICE WAS PREEXISTING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether the storm-in-progress doctrine applied in this slip and fall case. 

… [I]n this case a trier of fact should be charged with determining whether there was a lull or ongoing storm in progress that supports the continued delay of defendants’ obligation to remedy their premises from hazardous conditions … .

Inasmuch as defendants did not establish that there was a storm in progress, plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate that the ice was preexisting … . To that end, defendants also failed to establish as a matter of law the absence of a hazardous icy condition or whether they had notice and a reasonable period of time to correct such condition. We reach this conclusion particularly in light of the reply affidavit from Altschule [defendants’ meteorologist], who “generally agree[d]” with plaintiffs’ opposing meteorologist that ice may have formed as early as approximately 14 hours prior to the incident — therefore both acknowledging the presence of ice and confirming the maximum duration that it may have existed … . Gagne v MJ Props. Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05769, Third Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: The jury must decide whether the storm-in-progress doctrine applied in this sidewalk slip and fall. Because the defendants did not demonstrate the doctrine applied, plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate the ice was preexisting.

 

,

DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment. Defendant’s allegation his foot slipped off the brake pedal because of rocks and pebbles under the floor mat did not present a nonnegligent explanation for striking plaintiff’s stopped vehicle:

[Defendant’s] assertion that he tried to apply the brakes on his vehicle to avoid a collision with the plaintiff’s vehicle, but his foot slipped off the brake pedal due to rocks and pebbles under the floor mat, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied … . Donnellan v LaMarche, 2023 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Defendant’s explanation that his foot slipped off the brake pedal was not enough to raise a question of fact about either a nonnegligent explanation or the applicability of the emergency doctrine.

 

,

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist should have been awarded summary judgment in this vehicle-bicycle accident case, but defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed:

On a motion for summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative negligence to establish his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Although a plaintiff is not required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence … . “In general, a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, to sound the vehicle’s horn when a reasonably prudent person would do so in order to warn a bicyclist of danger, and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs … failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause … . Based upon the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their motion, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the injured plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, whether he should have slowed down earlier given the traffic conditions, and whether he contributed to the happening of the accident … . Bornsztejn v Zito, 2023 NY Slip Op 05706, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Here the defendant driver failed to see was should have been seen, so the plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment on liability. However there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent, so the comparative negligence affirmative defense remained viable on the issue of damages.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OWED PLAINITFF A DUTY OF CARE, A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the summary judgment motion by one of plaintiff’s treating physicians was properly granted in this medical malpractice case. Neither of plaintiff’s experts was qualified to assess the defendant medical oncologist’s (Hindenberg’s) care of plaintiff. Therefore the expert affidavits did not demonstrate defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Petillo), which is a question of law for the court:

… [I]n order to reach any discussion[s] about deviation from accepted medical practice, it is necessary first to establish the existence of a duty”… . “‘Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient'” … . “The existence and scope of a physician’s duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court” … . * * *

Petillo’s internal medicine and infectious disease expert failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist … . The expert did not claim to have any skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology. While the expert gave an opinion that Hindenburg departed from the standards of care applicable to internal medicine, Petillo was not referred to Hindenburg as an internist and Hindenburg did not treat Petillo as an internist, rendering the standard of care for an internist inapplicable.

Petillo’s surgical oncologist expert also failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist. This expert, a board-certified surgeon who practices in the field of surgical oncology, a specialty distinct from medical oncology, failed to establish that he had the skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology sufficient to provide a foundation to opine on the clinical standard of care and departures of a medical oncologist. Abruzzi v Maller, 2023 NY Slip Op 05704, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Before an expert can offer an admissible opinion on the care provided by a doctor in a medical malpractice case, the expert must demonstrate he or she is qualified to assess the care provided by the defendant doctor, here a medical oncologist. The failure to demonstrate the necessary qualifications to assess the care provided by the defendant specialist, constituted the failure to demonstrate the defendant doctor owed a duty to the plaintiff, a question of law for the court.

 

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