You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, sending the matter back for a motion to withdraw the plea (if defendant so chooses), determined County Court’s telling the defendant he could appeal his claim that the grand jury was tainted by inadmissible hearsay was erroneous. Defendant, with the judge’s and prosecutor’s permission, decided to enter an Alford plea based on the understanding he could appeal the grand-jury-evidence issue. But the Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York and sent the matter back to allow defendant to withdraw the plea:

“As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered,” such as evidentiary or technical defects. Although defendant, the People and the court all agreed that defendant’s Alford plea would be premised on the preservation of his right to raise these issues on appeal, conditional pleas such as this are generally not accepted in this state … , and the contentions he sought to preserve do not fall within the “extremely limited group of issues [that] survive[ ] the entry of a guilty plea” … . In this respect, we cannot overlook defendant’s assertion that his decision to enter an Alford plea was predicated on County Court granting the People’s motion to preclude his defenses and the corresponding promise that he could challenge that determination on appeal. Accordingly, as defendant is no longer receiving the full extent of his bargain, we remit the matter for County Court to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, should he elect to pursue that course … . People v Hafer, 2024 NY Slip Op 00341, Third Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s Alford plea, with the permission of the judge and prosecutor, was conditioned on his being able to appeal a Grand Jury evidence issue. The Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York. Defendant was allowed to move to withdraw his plea if he so chooses.

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING COMPLAINANT ABOUT HER MENTAL HEALTH; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this sex offense trial, determined defendant should not have been denied access to the complainant’s mental  health records and should not been prevented from cross-examining the complainant about her mental health:

… County Court erred in denying the defendant any access to the complainant’s mental health records … . Further, while the scope of cross-examination generally rests within the trial court’s discretion … , here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in sustaining the People’s objections to the cross-examination of the complainant with respect to her mental health, particularly since the People’s case primarily rested upon the complainant’s eyewitness testimony … . Moreover, these errors cannot be deemed harmless since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the errors, was not overwhelming, and it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the errors … . People v Nagle, 2024 NY Slip Op 00329, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s conviction rested on the testimony of the complainant in this sex offense trial. Defendant should not have been denied access to complainant’s mental health records and should not have been prevented from cross-examining complainant about her mental health. New trial ordered.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant NYC Transit Authority was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s slip and fall action. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor of defendant’s bus. The evidence of when the floor was last inspected was insufficient to show a lack of constructive notice. And the video submitted by the defendant was inadmissible because it was not authenticated:

The deposition testimony of a dispatcher employed by the defendant merely referred to general pre-trip inspection procedures performed by drivers. The defendant failed to present any evidence regarding “specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred” … .

Further, the defendant could not rely upon the video of the bus that it submitted on its motion so as to meet its prima facie burden, as the video was not authenticated, and thus, was not in admissible form … . Harrington v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 00297, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate a lack of construction notice of the condition in a slip and fall case, the defendant must submit evidence of a specific inspection of the area close in time to the fall. Evidence of general inspection practices is never enough.

Practice Point: In order to submit a video in evidence, it must be authenticated.

 

,

THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in a crime at the time defendant was stopped, grabbed and brought to the ground. The police were aware there had been 10 robberies in the area where the victims were punched or struck with objects. The arresting officer saw two men, including the defendant, holding onto a third man on a bicycle. When the men saw the police, one man ran and the man on the bicycle left the scene. Defendant began walking. The police stopped defendant with the police car. The officer touched what he thought was a gun in defendant’s pocket and then brought defendant to the ground. At the station the defendant stated the gun belonged to one of the other men and he had prevented a shooting: The gun and the statement should have been suppressed:

Officer Garcia did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk the defendant. The unusual interaction that Officer Garcia described regarding the man on the bicycle, coupled with reports and “intel” as to robberies in the area, may have provided circumstances giving rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot—i.e., level two under De Bour. Thus, Officer Garcia would have had a right of inquiry that permitted him to approach the defendant. However, rather than conducting meaningful inquiry to further his investigation, after the police vehicle stopped in front of the defendant, Officer Garcia exited the vehicle and immediately grabbed the defendant and touched his right rear pants pocket. People v Hernandez, 2024 NY Slip Op 00196, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The case illustrates the difference between the police having enough information to approach a defendant on the street to make an inquiry, and having reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Here the police had sufficient cause to inquire further, but not to stop and frisk.

 

,

THE DRUGS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN “PLAIN VIEW” IF THE POLICE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED DEFENDANT OUTSIDE THE CAR BEFORE LOOKING INSIDE THE CAR; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car should have been granted. The proof at the suppression hearing demonstrated the police observed innocent behavior in a parking lot which which was interpreted to be a drug transaction. As an officer approached, defendant got out of his car and walked toward the officer. The officer frisked the defendant and had him stand at the back of the car. The officer then looked in the car and saw cocaine on the seat. The car was then searched. The Fourth Department, over a two-judge dissent, held that the cocaine was in plain view and would have been seen had the officer simply walked up to the car without detaining the defendant. But the Court of Appeals held that the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation was made. Here the police had illegally detained defendant before the observation:

The Appellate Division reasoned that, even if [Officer] Young had not detained defendant, he could have observed the contraband in plain view simply by walking up to the driver’s seat and looking into the vehicle … . However, this conclusion is unsupported because, had the officers not unlawfully detained defendant behind the car, defendant could have walked back, opened the car door and sat on the driver’s seat—actions that, contrary to the dissent’s unsupported assertions … , would have blocked Young’s view of the contraband….  Therefore, the prosecution failed to meet its burden to establish at the suppression hearing that the unlawful detention of defendant was not the reason that Young had an “unobstructed view of the driver’s seat” … . People v Messano, 2024 NY Slip Op 00097, CtApp 1-11-24

Practice Point: The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation is made—not the case here.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the two “inadequate fall-prevention” causes of action in the complaint sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the affidavit from a nurse was not sufficient to support the malpractice causes of action:

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the specific allegations sounding in medical malpractice, by and through an expert’s affidavit from a physician opining that decedent was provided with fall prevention interventions throughout her admission that met or exceeded the standard of care, and that, following each fall, decedent was rendered the appropriate medical care and treatment. Moreover, this physician opined that the treatment plan developed for decedent and the care rendered to her were within the standard of care and were not a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries … . In opposition, plaintiff tendered an expert affidavit from a nurse. However, inasmuch as certain allegations sound in medical malpractice and pertain to medical determinations and what a physician should or should not have done, plaintiff’s nurse rendered opinions that “went beyond her professional and educational experience and cannot be considered competent medical opinion” … . Currie v Oneida Health Sys., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06780, Second Dept 12-28-23

Practice Point: Re: the medical malpractice causes of action, the affidavit from a physician in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment prevailed over plaintiff’s affidavit from a nurse who, based on her experience and education, could not offer a competent medical opinion.

 

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet substance on the floor alleged to have cause plaintiff’s slip and fall. Evidence that the corridor in question was inspected “more than an hour” before the slip and fall and evidence others were in the corridor when plaintiff fell did not eliminate questions fact about whether the hospital had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition. The defendant’s evidence that the corridor was inspected more than an hour before the accident was insufficient to establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy the condition. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, established that there were at least three nurses and a doctor present in the corridor at the time of her fall … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice anything on the floor before she fell was insufficient to establish that the condition would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection … . Croake v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06723, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, evidence the area of the fall was inspected “more than an hour” before the fall does not demonstrate the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition.

 

,

IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER’S CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN THE OUTLINE OF A GUN UNDER DEFENDANT’S SWEAT PANTS WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE PEOPLE THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession-of-a-weapon conviction, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing because the police officer’s (Desposito’s) testimony was not credible. The court went on to say that, even if Desposito’s testimony were true, the evidence did not provide reasonable suspicion for the street stop. Defendant was walking on the sidewalk. Desposito was in a moving car. Desposito claimed he saw the outline of a gun under defendant’s sweat pants and told defendant to stop. Defendant ran, was captured, and a gun was found. Because Desposito was in a moving car and his view of defendant was obscured by parked cars and another pedestrian, the court found his testimony insufficient to meet the “going forward” burden of proof:

… [T]he People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Desposito’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Desposito’s testimony that he was able to observe an “L-shaped object” beneath the defendant’s sweatpants as the police vehicle drove past the defendant strains credulity and defies common sense … . …

… [E]ven if Desposito’s testimony is credited as true, his observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Leon, 2023 NY Slip Op 06754, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a police officer’s suppression-hearing testimony attempting to demonstrate reasonable suspicion for a street stop is incredible as a matter of law, the People fail to meet their “burden of going forward” and the motion to suppress must be granted.

 

, , , ,

​ ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN LAW; BECAUSE THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWELDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) although plaintiff would not have been required to file a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action against a city pursuant to the General Municipal Law, plaintiff is required to file a notice of claim for the instant employment discrimination action against the town pursuant to the Town Law, and (2) plaintiff was entitled to leave to file a late notice of claim. The notice of claim provisions in the Town Law are broader than those in the General Municipal Law and include “wrong to a person” which encompasses employment discrimination:

Consistent with the purpose of the Human Rights Law, unlawful discrimination and retaliation is undoubtably considered a wrong against a person (see Executive Law § 290 [3]). Thus, the plain, unambiguous text of Town Law § 67 directs that a notice of claim is required for an action alleging violations of the Human Rights Law. * * *

Although the presence or absence of any given factor is not determinative, it is well settled that “[a] factor to be accorded great weight in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is whether the [public corporation] had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, including knowledge of the injuries or damages” … . …

… [T]here is no dispute that the Town and its officers had timely actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim … . Arnold v Town of Camillus, 2023 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Unlike the General Municipal Law, the Town Law requires the filing of a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action under the Human Rights Law.

Practice Point: The most important criterium for granting leave to file a late notice of claim is the defendant’s timely knowledge of the facts underlying the action.

 

,

HERE THE WRITTEN LOGGING CONTRACT WAS COMPLETE AND UNAMBIGUOUS; EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ADDITIONAL ORAL AGREEMENT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was complete and any evidence of an alleged oral agreement was precluded by the parol evidence rule:

 “The parol evidence rule generally operates to preclude evidence of a prior or contemporaneous communication during negotiations of an agreement that contradicts, varies, or explains a written agreement which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and expresses the parties’ entire agreement and intentions” … . …

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the timber sale contract is a complete written instrument, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . The contract sets forth the parties, the address of the property, the contract period, the payment terms, and a description of the items sold … . There is no reference to any other document or map … . Inasmuch as the contract constituted a complete, integrated agreement, plaintiffs may not rely on an alleged oral agreement to permit logging on the southernmost section of the property, permit logging on the middle section of the property only upon additional payment, and prohibit logging on the northernmost section of the property, to vary the terms of the contract. Indeed, one would expect the contract to embody any such restrictions on logging, and “[s]uch a collateral agreement cannot be separately enforced” … . Lentner v Upstate Forestry & Dev., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06626, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Where a written contract is complete and unambiguous on its face, evidence of an additional oral agreement is precluded by the parol evidence rule.

 

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