You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. An accomplice, Brenda, testified that another accomplice, Roberto, had pled guilty for his role in the shooting and Roberto’s cooperation agreement was placed in evidence with Brenda on the stand. Brenda also testified that defendant made incriminating statements after the shooting. Although the prosecution had informed defense counsel Roberto would be called as a witness, Roberto was not called. Defendant was therefore deprived of right to confront Roberto. In addition, the accomplice jury instruction was not requested or given and the missing witness jury instruction was not requested or given:

… [D]efense counsel failed to object to evidence elicited by the People pertaining to the guilty plea of Roberto, a nontestifying alleged accomplice, including the introduction into evidence of the cooperation agreement in which Roberto agreed to give “meaningful and truthful information” concerning the shooting. The admission of this evidence violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to request either an accomplice-in-law or accomplice-in-fact jury instruction with respect to Brenda’s testimony. Since accomplice testimony is “marked by obvious self-interest,” a defendant “‘may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense'” … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to timely request a missing witness charge … . People v Alvarenga, 2023 NY Slip Op 03704, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Defense counsel was deemed ineffective (1) for failing to assert defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him when an accomplice testified about a non-testifying participant in the shooting, (2) for failing to request the accomplice jury instruction, and (3) in failing to request the missing witness jury instruction.

 

, ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION OR CAUSE THE CONDITION BY SPECIAL USE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk/curb slip and fall case, determined (1) the defendant village did not have written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. and (2), the defendant abutting property owner did create the condition or cause the condition by special use. Therefore the complaint against both defendants should have been dismissed:

… [T]he Village correctly contends that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, it was not required to establish both that it lacked prior written notice of the defect and that it had not created the defect … . Rather, upon the Village’s prima facie showing that it lacked prior written notice of the defect, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to the prior written notice statute applied … . As the plaintiff did not meet this burden, the court should have granted the Village’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.

… Scipione [defendant abutting property owner] demonstrated, prima facie, that he did not create the defect, that he did not cause the defect to occur because of a special use, and that the relevant section of the Village Charter did not make abutting landowners liable for injuries caused by sidewalk defects … . With respect to the issue of special use, Scipione’s evidence showed that the intended use of the step on which the plaintiff allegedly fell was “the normal intended use of the public way,” and that he did not “derive[ ] a special benefit from that property unrelated to the public use” … . Morales v Village of Ossining, 2023 NY Slip Op 03690, Second Dept 7-5-23

Similar “written notice” issue and result in O’Connor v City of Long Beach, 2023 NY Slip Op 03702, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk/curb defect which caused plaintiffs fall. Therefore the action against the village should have been dismissed.

Practice Point: Here the abutting property owner demonstrated he did not create the sidewalk/curb defect and did not cause the defect by special use. Therefore the action against the property owner should have been dismissed.

 

, , , , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in a real estate deal should not have been dismissed because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint. After the real estate purchase offer was signed by both parties and the down payment was made, defendant’s attorney returned the down payment check with a letter saying that the defendant was no longer interested in selling to the plaintiff:

Here, neither the affidavits submitted in support of the defendant’s motion nor the purported contract between the defendant and another purchaser constituted documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the defendant’s evidentiary submissions were “insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-107(5). Jeffrey v Collins, 2023 NY Slip Op 03686, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: The affidavits and real estate contract submitted in support of the motion to dismiss did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint and therefore did not support dismissal of the complaint based on documentary evidence.

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant City of New York did not demonstrate when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish … that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not show when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected in relation to when the subject accident occurred, but rather merely described their general cleaning and inspection practices for the staircase … . Islam v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03685. Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Once again an appellate court reiterates that proof of general cleaning or inspection practices does not prove a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused a slip and fall.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined the judge should not have found the police entry into defendant’s residence (the Payton issue) was justified by the parole warrant without a hearing to determine validity of the parole warrant:

” … A parole violation warrant by itself justifies the entry of the residence for the purposes of locating and arresting the defendant therein . . . provided that, as here, the officers ‘reasonably believe[d] the defendant to be present’ in the premises … . … Inasmuch as defendant challenged the factual basis for and the continued validity of the parole violation warrant at the time of his arrest, which he alleged was executed solely by police officers unaccompanied by parole officers, that was error.

Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 8004.2 (a), a parole violation warrant cannot be issued without “probable cause to believe that [the parolee] has violated one or more of the conditions of their release.” “Probable cause exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances that would convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is more probable than not that the subject releasee has committed the acts in question” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [b]). If a parole officer believes that there is probable cause that the parolee has violated a condition of release “in an important respect,” that parole officer is required to report that to the parole board “or a designated officer,” such as a senior parole officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [a]), at which time “a notice of violation may be approved” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [c]) and a warrant for “retaking and temporary detention may [be] issue[d]” by, among others, a designated officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [d]). Notably, a parole violation warrant may be administratively canceled “[a]t any time” after it is issued (9 NYCRR 8004.11 [a]).

Here, inasmuch as defendant sufficiently raised the Payton issue in his omnibus motion, and the People’s opposition papers did not resolve the issue as a matter of law, the court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to put the People to their proof regarding the alleged probable cause for the warrant, i.e., absconding, and whether the warrant was still active at the time defendant was arrested … . People v McCracken, 2023 NY Slip Op 03614, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here the entry into defendant’s home was justified by a parole warrant. Because the defendant challenged the validity of the parole warrant, and the People did not demonstrate its validity in their papers, defendant was entitled to a judicial determination after a hearing.

 

, , ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop at the suppression hearing. The police had a warrant to search defendant’s apartment and anyone in it. Before the warrant was executed, the defendant left the apartment and the SWAT team stopped him. The People relied on the allegation that defendant was violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law at the time of the stop by walking in the middle of the street. The Fourth Department found the evidence of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was insufficient. Therefore the People failed to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct:

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … . Here, the court refused to suppress the physical evidence on the ground that the officers’ observation of defendant walking in the roadway provided probable cause for them to believe that defendant had violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which justified the initial stop and the subsequent pursuit of defendant. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1156 (a) requires that, “[w]here sidewalks are provided and they may be used with safety it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.” Here, when asked at the suppression hearing if he had seen defendant “doing anything illegal,” the testifying police officer responded, “[o]ther than walking down the center of the road, no.” Even assuming, arguendo, that we can infer the presence of a sidewalk based on the officer’s response, we conclude that the People failed to establish that a sidewalk was available and that it could “be used with safety” …, especially when considering that defendant was stopped in January in central New York. Nor did the People establish that defendant, by walking “down the center of the road,” violated section 1156 (b), which requires a pedestrian, where sidewalks are not provided, to “walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic” inasmuch as a pedestrian is only required to do so “when practicable.” Thus, we agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct. People v Montgomery, 2023 NY Slip Op 03606, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing the People have the initial burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. That issue is a question of law which can be reviewed by an appellate court. Here the stop was based on the allegation defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by walking in the middle of the street. The People made no attempt to show there were sidewalks or, if there were sidewalks, that they were passable in January. The Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was not supported by sufficient proof. The People therefore did not prove the legality of the police conduct and the suppression motion should have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GRABBING AT HIS WAISTBAND AND RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION, THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT’S STOPPING HIS CAR IN THE STREET AND AGGRESSIVELY APPROACHING A WOMAN IN ANOTHER CAR PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion defendant was about to commit a crime when he grabbed at his waistband and ran. The police saw the defendant stop his car in the street and aggressively approach another car on foot. When the police told him to stop, he ran. The majority agreed with the dissent that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband did not provide reasonable suspicion he had a weapon. Rather the police saw enough to have reasonable suspicion the defendant was about to commit a crime when he aggressively approached the other car:

We agree with defendant that his arm movements directed at his waistband and his flight would not, without more, justify police pursuit. As the court determined, however, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant was about to commit a crime because he approached the woman in an aggressive manner with clenched fists while yelling at her. The officers thus properly ordered defendant to stop and could have lawfully frisked him had he not run away. Because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we conclude that the subsequent pursuit was also supported by reasonable suspicion, especially considering that, immediately following the stop, defendant turned his back to the officers, grabbed at his waistband, and then fled on foot, leaving his vehicle in the middle of the street with its driver’s door open.

From the dissent:

… [D[efendant’s digging at his waistband, flight, and leaving his car in the street “do not provide additional specific circumstances indicating that defendant was engaged in criminal activity” … . While defendant’s actions, “viewed as a whole, [may have been] suspicious, . . . there is nothing in this record to establish that the officers had a reasonable suspicion” that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . People v Cleveland, 2023 NY Slip Op 03597, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Both the majority and the dissent agreed that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband and running did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion. The majority found that defendant’s stopping his car in the street and aggressively approaching a woman in another car with clenched fists provided the police with reasonable suspicion and justified pursuit. The dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

PRECEDENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ADMIT, UNDER SANDOVAL, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SIMILAR TO THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL; RATHER THAT PRECEDENT ONLY HELD EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED SOLELY BASED ON SIMILARITY; THE PREJUDICE VERSUS PROBATIVE-VALUE ANALYSIS SHOULD STILL BE APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge was not bound by Fourth Department precedent to admit, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior possession of a weapon conviction in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution. The Fourth Department has held that evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely based on similarity with the offense on trial. But here the Fourth Department made clear that the prejudice versus probative-value analysis should still be applied where the crimes are similar:

… [T]he court cited this Court’s decision in People v Stanley (155 AD3d 1684 [4th Dept 2017] …) and advised defense counsel that she “may want to discuss [her arguments] with the Fourth Department,” explaining that Stanley was “their ruling, not my ruling” and that it was “bound by [the Fourth Department’s] rulings.” …

Stanley, however, stands for the proposition that “[c]ross-examination of a defendant concerning a prior crime is not prohibited solely because of the similarity between that crime and the crime charged” … . That means that a Sandoval application by the People should not be automatically denied merely because a prior conviction is similar in nature to the present offense, and certainly does not mean that a court must automatically grant the People’s application. There was nothing in Stanley that “bound” the court in this case and, to the contrary, the court was required to make its own discretionary balancing of the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction against its potential for undue prejudice … . People v Colon, 2023 NY Slip Op 03583, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Precedent holding that, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely because it is similar to the crime on trial does not mean that similar crimes should automatically be admitted. The prejudice versus probative-value analysis should be still be applied to similar crimes.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HIS BIKE UPON LANDING AFTER A JUMP; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE LANDING AREA CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE BIKE ON A PRIOR PRACTICE RUN BUT DID NOT INVESTIGATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff, an experienced motocross rider, assumed the risk of injury when using defendant’s motocross track. Plaintiff alleged a pothole where riders landed after a jump was filled with a talcum-powder-like substance which caused him to lose control of the bike. The majority concluded plaintiff was aware of the risk associated with the material used to fill the pothole:

Considering that Fritz [plaintiff] testified that on both jump landings the back end of his bike “kicked up,” that he hit the same pothole and that he had to work to recover the bike, we are satisfied that he was aware of the potential for injury on that jump’s landing … . Fritz v Walden Playboys M.C. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03524, Third Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff testified he was aware that some aspect of a jump-landing area of the motocross track caused him to lose control of his bike briefly in a prior practice run but he did not investigate. The majority concluded he therefore assumed the risk associated with a pothole filled with talcum-like powder in the landing area. Plaintiff lost control of the bike in the area of the filled pothole on his second jump.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for damages in this personal injury action should not have been denied due to plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to submit medical records for more than a year after the inquest. Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s inaction:

Although plaintiffs’ counsel had timely subpoenaed the relevant medical records and those records were apparently delivered to the subpoenaed records room in the courthouse, they were not available at the inquest. Supreme Court therefore reserved decision to give plaintiffs time to submit evidence supporting their damages claim. After a period of more than one year in which plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the requested information, Supreme Court issued an order … denying the application for damages on the ground of failure of proof.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the underlying default. Although we share the court’s concern regarding the extended delay and the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ former counsel, counsel’s neglect in pursuing his clients’ action should not be permitted to redound to the clients’ detriment … . Counsel did not deny that he failed to respond to communications from the court, but explained that the delays were due to a problem in his firm’s case management system, which did not provide reminders … . These circumstances present a type of law office failure for which the clients should not be penalized , particularly in light of the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits … . In addition, defendants defaulted and therefore will not be prejudiced … . Rosario v General Behr Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03560, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the attorney’s failure to submit medical records requested by the judge after an inquest was not the type of law office failure for which plaintiffs should be penalized. The judge should not have dismissed the application for damages based on counsel’s neglect.

 

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