You are here: / Evidence
,

MOTHER’S PETITION ALLEGED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION-OF-CUSTODY HEARING; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition alleged facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on whether the custody arrangement should be modified:

… [M]other’s petition contained allegations that were sufficiently specific to warrant a hearing, including the allegations that the parties’ ability to cooperate with each other with respect to the children had deteriorated and that the parties were no longer capable of communicating with each other in a civil and cooperative manner … .. Those allegations were not before the Family Court on a prior occasion, and were not merely conclusory or nonspecific allegations … . Because facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required  … . Matter of Liang v O’Brien, 2023 NY Slip Op 02789, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: Here mother’s petition alleged facts sufficient to warrant a modification-of-custody hearing. Although the facts are not described, the legal criteria are laid out in detail.

 

,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER, DUE TO UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS, NEGLECTED ONE CHILD AND DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE OTHER CHILDREN; THE CRITERIA FOR A NEGLECT FINDING IN THIS CONTEXT ARE LAID OUT IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding that father, due to untreated mental illness, neglected one child, Fyre, and derivatively neglected the other children was not supported by the record:

… [T]he record fails to support a finding of derivative neglect as to the subject children based on the purported neglect of Fyre. In that regard, the petitioner failed to establish that the father suffered from an untreated mental illness that placed Fyre at imminent risk of harm … . Inasmuch as the evidence failed to support a finding that Fyre was endangered by the father’s untreated mental illness, it failed to support a finding of derivative neglect as to the subject children (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i] …). Matter of Sonja R. (Victor R.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02787, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: Here the record did not support the finding that father, based upon his allegedly untreated mental illness, neglected one child and derivatively neglected the other children. Although the facts are not described, the legal criteria for neglect in this context are explained in detail.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WERE HELPING THE COMPLAINANT PROCURE A U VISA WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT TO STAY IN THE US AND APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE; U VISAS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALIENS WHO SUFFER ABUSE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendants’ convictions should be reversed and the indictments dismissed because the People failed to reveal they were helping the complainant procure a U visa which would allow the complainant to remain in the United States and apply for permanent residence. A U visa is available to an alien who has suffered abuse as a victim of criminal activity. The defendants have already served their sentences and have been deported:

A U visa is available to an alien who “has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity[,] . . . possesses information concerning criminal activity . . . [and] . . . has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful” to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other authority prosecuting criminal activity … . * * *

To obtain a U visa from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an applicant must first acquire a certification from a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local authority investigating criminal activity (see 8 USC § 1184 [p][1]). The certification must confirm that the applicant for a U visa “‘has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful'” in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity … . Without a certification, the applicant cannot obtain a U visa. Law enforcement is not mandated to issue the certification … .

The U visa is a valuable benefit. Under Section 245(m) of the Act, after three years of continuous presence in the United States (in which the recipient also receives work authorization), the recipient may apply for lawful permanent residence in the United States. * * *

… [W]e cannot know what a jury would have done with further, material, impeachment arising from the U visa evidence. It might have found the U visa evidence fatally undermined [the complainant’s] credibility. We find that there is reasonable probability that had the jury considered the U visa evidence, it would have raised enough reasonable doubt to produce a different outcome. People v Flores, 2023 NY Slip Op 02768, First Dept 5-23-23

Practice Point: The People did not inform the defense they were helping the complainant procure a U visa which would allow the complainant to remain in the US and apply for permanent residence. A U visa is available to an alien who suffered abuse as a victim of criminal activity. The U-visa-information was Brady material which could have affected the outcome of the trial. The convictions were reversed and the indictments dismissed.

 

,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police properly stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger but did not have sufficient information to justify a search of the vehicle for a weapon. A weapon was seized from an open purse in the back seat:

The police have authority to order occupants out of a vehicle in the event of a traffic violation … . Absent probable cause, the police are allowed to conduct a limited intrusion into the vehicle only if the totality of the information available supports a reasonable conclusion that there is a substantial likelihood of a weapon within the vehicle that poses an actual and specific threat to the officers’ safety … . … [T]he Court of Appeals has described this exception to the probable cause requirement as “narrow” … .

Furtive movements “suggesting that the defendant was reaching for something that might be a weapon” combined with some other suggestive factor have been determined to meet this standard … . * * *

No such actual and specific danger was shown to exist in this case. …  Defendant hesitated only briefly before rolling the window down and complying with the officer’s demands to show his hands and to step out of the vehicle. Taking a few “moments” to comply with an officer’s orders does not rise to the level of furtive or suspicious activity so as to support a finding of an actual and specific danger to officer safety  … He was frisked outside of the vehicle and found not to possess any weapons. Defendant remained in full view of the officers, his demeanor described as “relaxed”; he made eye contact and did not otherwise appear suspicious. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 02769, First Dept 5-23-23

Practice Point: There is a narrow exception to the probable cause requirement where police officers suspect a weapon may be in the car during a traffic stop. Here the evidence did not suggest the presence of the weapon. The weapon seized from an open purse in the back seat should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED WAS MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WAS TOLLED BY INCARCERATION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender and remitting the matter for a hearing. determined the People did not submit evidence demonstrating when defendant was incarcerated such that the 10-year look-back period for the prior felony conviction could be calculated. The court noted that the issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [D]efendant contends that he was not properly sentenced as a second felony offender. … [D]efendant was not required to preserve such a claim where, as here, the purported illegality is plain “from the face of the appellate record” … . … [W]e agree with defendant that the record reflects that his April 11, 2011 sentence on his predicate felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the instant offense, which occurred on July 6, 2021 … , and the People failed to meet their burden of showing that the 10-year look-back period was tolled by any periods of incarceration … . At sentencing, defendant admitted to the prior offense, but the People’s predicate felony statement did not set forth defendant’s dates of incarceration … . Since the record fails to disclose the legality of sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, the matter must be remitted for a hearing on this issue and resentencing … . People v McCall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02719, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the People’s failure to submit proof of defendant’s prior incarceration made it impossible to determine whether the 10-year look-back period for a prior felony was tolled. Defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing and resentencing.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of assault second:

The victim testified that defendant delivered a very hard blow to his face, that he felt pain, and that he experienced bleeding and swelling. Hospital records describe the victim’s pain as “aching” and indicate he was directed to take over-the-counter painkillers. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it was sufficient to establish physical injury for the purposes of Penal Law § 120.05 (3) … . People v Wheeler, 2023 NY Slip Op 02736. CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, found the evidence of physical injury sufficient to support the assault second conviction.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET STOP DID NOT MEET THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME OR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” STANDARD; THE FRISK WAS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, and an extensive concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime or was in possession of a weapon at the time defendant was frisked. The drugs found on defendant’s person should have been suppressed:

Mr. Johnson’s [defendant’s] actions, as observed by Officer Pike, do not meet the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under De Bour. Prior to the frisk, Officer Pike observed Mr. Johnson: (1) move from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat of his parked car; (2) move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat; (3) pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt; and (4) appear nervous while being questioned. These circumstances do not support a reasonable view that Mr. Johnson was armed or that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. These actions “constituted [nothing] other than ‘innocuous behavior,’ sole reliance on which would impermissibly reduce the foundation for [this] intrusion to nothing but ‘whim or caprice’ ” … . People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02734, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals determined the defendant’s actions prior to the stop and frisk did not rise to the “reasonable suspicion” standard. The police observed defendant move to the passenger seat in his parked car, move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat, pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt, and appear nervous when questioned. The stop and frisk was illegal and the seized drugs should have been suppressed.

 

, , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclose because the evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note was insufficient. The court noted Supreme Court should not have considered evidence first submitted in reply:

Although the vice president of loan documentation attested in her affidavit, based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, that an allonge containing an endorsement in blank by “Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation As Receiver of AmTrust Bank fka Ohio Savings Bank” was attached to the consolidated note, she did not aver that the allonge was “firmly affixed” to the consolidated note within the meaning of UCC 3-202(2). “Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Moreover, the affidavit was sworn to on January 9, 2020, subsequent to the commencement of this action, and the affiant did not state when she reviewed the copy of the note and the allonge. Thus, her affidavit was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the allonge was “so firmly affixed [to the consolidated note] as to become a part thereof” (UCC 3-202[2]) at the time of commencement of either the 2014 action or the 2015 action … . Nor did the affidavit of the employee of the plaintiff’s attorneys establish compliance with the requirements of UCC 3-202(2), as it made no reference to an allonge to the consolidated note.

Affidavits submitted by the plaintiff with its reply papers, asserting that the allonge was attached to the consolidated note at the time of commencement of the 2015 action, should not have been considered by the Supreme Court, since a party moving for summary judgment “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mitselmakher, 2023 NY Slip Op 02709, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to foreclose the bank must show the allonge was “firmly attached” to the note within the meaning of UCC 3-303(2). The bank’s evidence here was insufficient.

Practice Point: Evidence first submitted in reply should not be considered in support of the prima facie burden for summary judgment.

 

,

THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S FACE AND DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT FIRE A GUN MERELY FAILED TO CORROBORATE OR BOLSTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, IT DID NOT CONTRADICT OR DISPROVE ANY EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to impeach her own witness because the witness’s testimony merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not contradict or disprove any evidence. The witness testified he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see defendant fire a gun:

” … [B]efore a party may impeach its own witness, the testimony on a ‘material fact’ must ‘tend[ ] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[ ] the party’s case'” … . “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . People v Sams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02684, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: In order to impeach their own witness, the witness’s testimony must have contradicted or disproved the People’s case. Here the witness’s testimony that he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see the defendant fire a gun merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not disprove or contradict any evidence. Even if the testimony was untrue, the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness.

 

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