You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A SIROIS HEARING ON WHETHER HE PROCURED THE VICTIM’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was entitled to a Sirois hearing. The People argued the victim’s statement should be placed in evidence because the defendant had procured her silence at trial. But the evidence on the issue was conflicting, necessitating a hearing:

… “[D]efendant should have been afforded an opportunity to test the causal link between [the victim’s refusal to testify at trial and the jail calls], as [defendant] requested, at a separate hearing” … . Although the People contend that a hearing was not necessary because the jail calls “so overwhelming[ly]” establish that the victim’s silence was procured by defendant’s misconduct, “this conclusion . . . is not the test inasmuch as [this Court] cannot evaluate the record in its present state since no hearing was held” … . Moreover, although a defendant may waive a hearing … , that did not occur here. There is no evidence in the record that defendant agreed to forego a hearing or agreed to proceed without further inquiry. In fact, when Supreme Court ruled on the ultimate Sirois issue, rather than on whether the People had “allege[d] specific facts which demonstrate a distinct possibility that a criminal defendant has engaged in witness tampering” such that a hearing was required … , defendant’s trial counsel, the next day, prior to any opening statements, requested a hearing … . The court, however, refused this request, reiterating that it found that the People met their ultimate burden on their submissions. Given this, we find that Supreme Court erred by casting aside “the constitutionally guaranteed truth-testing devices of confrontation and cross-examination … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence about whether a defendant procured a witness’s refusal to testify, the judge should not rule on it without holding a hearing.

 

, ,

UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE ACTION CANNOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the 2022 amendment to CPLR 213 (the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]) overruled the recent Court of Appeals case which held a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. In addition, the Second Department ruled the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

FAPA amended CPLR 3217, governing the voluntary discontinuance of an action, by adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under [CPLR 213(4)], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” * * *

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Cynthia Wallace, an officer of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter SLS), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Wallace attested that she was familiar with the types of records maintained by SLS in connection with the loan, that she had personal knowledge of the procedures for creating the records, and that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff or SLS. Therefore, Wallace failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (see id.). The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation proving the certified and first-class mailings … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Stewart, 2023 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A recent amendment CPLR 213 prohibits a bank which has started a foreclosure action from stopping the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the action.

Practice Point: If the bank doesn’t prove strict compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304, its summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action must be denied.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that video surveillance of the plaintiff taken prior to the deposition in this traffic accident case, and after a discovery order requiring disclosure of video surveillance had been issued, could not be used in support of a summary judgment motion re: “serious injury” or at trial. However, video surveillance taken after the deposition need not be provided to the plaintiff by any specific deadline and was not precluded:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s noncompliance with the plaintiff’s discovery notice and two court orders, over an extended period of time, was willful and strategic with regard to the [pre-deposition] surveillance video. … [T]he defendant should have been precluded from using the … surveillance video of the plaintiff …, as it was not disclosed prior to the plaintiff’s deposition … . * * *

CPLR 3101(i) contains no language prohibiting the acquisition of surveillance video of a party after that party has testified at a deposition. Nor does any decisional authority. Indeed, CPLR 3101(h) recognizes that disclosure is a continuing obligation, requiring parties to amend or supplement discovery responses when later information is obtained that renders an earlier response inaccurate or incomplete when made or when the prior response, though correct and complete when made, is materially no longer so. And parties are not required to be more forthcoming with surveillance videos than they would with any ordinary discovery material under CPLR 3101(a) … .

That said, CPLR 3101(i) provides no fixed deadline for the disclosure of post-deposition surveillance video footage … . Rather, trial courts may regulate issues of timing through their preliminary and compliance conference orders … , subject to their authority and discretion to manage their calendars and determine whether to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126(2) for any noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines … . Pizzo v Lustig, 2023 NY Slip Op 02541, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here surveillance video of the plaintiff which was gathered before the deposition and after a disclosure order was precluded from both the summary judgment stage and the trial. There is no specific deadline for turning over video surveillance of the plaintiff gathered after deposition and that video evidence was not precluded.

 

,

​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition and did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the condition. A metal gate, which should have been secured, fell on plaintiff:

… [T]estimony, if credited, indicates that the gate was not secured to the track, thereby raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the manager created the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to properly secure the gate at the end of his shift that day … .

… [T]he service manager testified at his deposition that it was his regular practice to inspect the area of the gate “two [or] three times a day,” but the defendant offered no evidence as to when the gate was last inspected on the date of the plaintiff’s injuries. The service manager’s testimony, which “merely referenced his general inspection practices” and failed to indicate when the area where the accident occurred “was last inspected . . . relative to the accident,” was insufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice … . Pena v Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Del., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02530, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here a metal gate which should have been secured fell on plaintiff. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area where the accident occurred was last inspected. Therefore defendant failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the unsecured gate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in a slip and fall: Rolon v Arden 29, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02545, Second Dept 5-10-23

 

,

THE STORE MANAGER TOOK THE TWO CANS OF RED BULL DEFENDANT WAS CARRYING FROM HIM AND TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THE STORE; THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE BURGLARY CONVICTION; AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED OTHERWISE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence supported the burglary charge. The defendant was stopped by the store manager carrying two cans of Red Bull. The manager took the cans and defendant left the store. The dissenters argued there was no evidence the defendant intended to leave the store without paying:

We disagree with the dissent that the surveillance video supports a reasonable inference that defendant was planning to purchase the two cans of Red Bull because he has “what appears to be cash” in his hand, while walking toward the front of the store. The record indicates that when defendant walked down the store aisle, toward the front of the store, holding a can of Red Bull in each hand, the store manager told him to stop. She then told defendant that he did not belong in CVS, and asked defendant to leave and to give her the two cans. Defendant apparently “became upset,” put the two cans down and immediately left the store. Defendant never indicated that he intended to buy the two cans of Red Bull or made any effort to pay for them. Following his arrest, defendant admitted to police that “[he] was thirsty, [he] need[ed] something to drink[,]” and that “all [he] took was a Red Bull.” In fact, the defense never sought to prove that defendant was carrying cash in his hand or made such an argument to the jury. This argument is purely speculative. The jury viewed the video and was able to decide for itself whether the video was “grainy” as well as what reasonable inferences could be drawn from the defendant’s actions. People v Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02467, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: Here the store manager took the two cans of Red Bull defendant was carrying and told the defendant to leave the store, which he did. The strong dissent argued the burglary conviction was not supported because there was no evidence defendant did not intend to pay for the Red Bull.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case. There was no evidence when the area was last inspected prior to fall. And there was evidence the mat and warning sign placed in the area were inadequate:

… [D]efendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition caused by the wet and slippery floor where plaintiff fell, as they did not submit any evidence establishing when they last inspected the vestibule on the day of the accident … . Rather, the evidence shows that the building’s superintendent was aware of the hazardous condition and tried to address it with a mat and caution sign. In addition, plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether these precautions were reasonable under the circumstances. Although a landlord is not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the floor of its premises by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by the building superintendent’s placement of an unreasonably short anti-slip floor mat on known wet, glossy tiles on a newly laid floor … . Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to check to see if the wet floor warning sign remained in place after it was initially placed as a precautionary device. Rodriguez v KWIK Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02471, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case the defendant must show the area was inspected close in time to the fall in order to prove a lack of constructive notice.

Practice Point: Even where, as here, the defendant attempts to address the dangerous condition (placing a mat and a warning sign in the area of the wet floor0 a question of fact may be raised about whether the measures taken were adequate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in Gomez v Samaritan Daytop Vil., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02458, First Dept 5-9-23

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT TESTIFED THE VICTIM WAS ON TOP OF HIM REPEATEDLY STRIKING HIM IN THE HEAD WHEN HE PULLED OUT HIS FIREARM AND SHOT THE VICTIM; EVEN IF DEFENDANT’S VERSION WAS DEEMED UNLIKELY, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense. Defendant testified he was on the ground with the victim on top of him, repeatedly striking him in the head, when he drew his weapon and shot the victim:

“Even if [the … victim] had not already employed deadly physical force against . . . defendant at the time . . . defendant allegedly used deadly physical force against [the … victim], the question remains whether . . . defendant could reasonably have believed that the use of such force against him was imminent” … . The … victim was not armed, but defendant testified that he knew that the … victim owned at least one gun and that, at the time of the shooting, he did not know whether the … victim was armed. Further, defendant’s testimony that the … victim pinned him down and was repeatedly punching his face and head could support a finding that defendant reasonably believed that such conduct presented an imminent threat of deadly force inasmuch as “[t]he natural and probable consequences of repeatedly striking a man while he is on the ground defenseless is that he will sustain a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10)” … . Although defendant’s version of the incident may be “dubious, a trial court is required to give the justification charge even where the defendant’s version of events is ‘extraordinarily unlikely’ ” … . People v Swanton, 2023 NY Slip Op 02433, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: Here defendant testified he was on the ground with the victim on top of him, repeatedly striking him in the head, when he pulled out his firearm and shot the victim. Even though the victim was not using deadly force, and even if the defendant’s version of events was deemed unlikely, defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense; new trial ordered.

 

, , , ,

THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THAT DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE IS THE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, NOT THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE HOMICIDE OCCURRED; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department (1) granted the writ of coram nobis based upon appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue, and (2) ordered a new trial on the second degree murder charge because the jury instruction on depraved indifference was defective. Although the issue was not preserved, the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice:

Defendant asserts that County Court’s instructions to the jury regarding depraved indifference murder were consistent with the overruled objective standard set forth in People v Register (60 NY2d 270 [1983] …), and therefore the court’s instructions failed to explain the requisite culpable mental state as required by People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]). We agree. In discharging its duty to deliver a charge to the jury, “[a] court must instruct the jury regarding both the ‘fundamental legal principles applicable to criminal cases in general’ and those ‘material legal principles applicable to the particular case’ ” (… CPL 300.10 [1], [2]). At the time of defendant’s trial, the Court of Appeals had already held that “depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” … . As a result, “under Feingold, it is not the circumstances under which the homicide occurred that determines whether [a] defendant is guilty of depraved indifference murder, but rather [the] defendant’s mental state at the time the crime occurred” … .

Upon our review of the record, which reflects that County Court had twice instructed the jury with the overruled objective standard, “the jury charge did not unambiguously state that depraved indifference was the culpable mental state for the crime with which defendant was charged, [and therefore] we cannot conclude that the jury, hearing the whole charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at a decision” … . People v Weaver, 2023 NY Slip Op 02352, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The depraved indifference jury instruction was similar to the overruled objective standard requiring a new trial. Depraved indifference is the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime, not the circumstances of the commission of the homicide.

Practice Point: Although the issue was not preserved, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it on appeal. Here the writ of coram nobis was granted, the conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

 

,

PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a comprehensive dissent, determined the parole officers’ search of defendant-parolee’s residence based upon a tip from his mother was proper. Mother, with whom defendant resided, said she saw a picture of defendant with a gun. In the search extended magazines and gun parts were found in defendant’s bedroom:

The general rules and conditions of release typically require a parolee to submit to a warrantless search by his or her parole officer … . The record evinces that defendant executed such a document. However, “a parolee does not surrender his or her constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, [and] what may be unreasonable with respect to an individual who is not on parole may be reasonable with respect to one who is. Accordingly, a search of a parolee undertaken by a parole officer is constitutional if the conduct of the parole officer was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty and was substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … .

* * * Since the information concerning defendant’s possible violation of his parole conditions came from his mother, there existed a legitimate reason for the search undertaken and it was substantially related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties … . People v Spirito, 2023 NY Slip Op 02353, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Parolees do not give up the right to contest an unreasonable search. Here the search was prompted by a tip from defendant’s mother and was deemed substantially related to the parole officers’ duties. There was a comprehensive dissent.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense request for the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction should have been granted;

The court should have granted defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge. There was no direct evidence establishing defendant’s participation in the conspiracy … , and the People do not argue otherwise. The court’s standard instructions on reasonable doubt and inferences to be drawn from evidence did not suffice, because they did not make the jury aware of its duty to apply the circumstantial evidence standard to the People’s entire case and exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence … . The error was not harmless, because the circumstantial evidence of defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy was not overwhelming.

However, because the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, there is no basis for dismissal of the indictment. People v Garcia, 2023 NY Slip Op 02392, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The judge’s jury instruction did not make it clear the circumstantial evidence standard applied to the entire case. New trial ordered.

 

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