You are here: / Evidence
,

THE UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 38 MONTHS IN SEEKING A WARRANT FOR A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE RAPIST BY THE COMPLAINANT RIGHT AWAY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the inexplicable delay in seeking a DNA sample from the defendant in this rape case violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The complainant reported the rape right away and named the defendant as the perpetrator. The defendant denied having sex with the complainant and refused to voluntarily provide a DNA sample. 38 months later the People applied for and were granted a warrant for the DNA sample. Defendant was convicted after a trial. The majority opinion went through the Taranovich (37 NY2d 442) pre-indictment-delay factors:

“Generally when there has been a protracted delay, certainly over a period of years, the burden is on the prosecution to establish good cause” … . It has not established good faith in this case. Here, 24 months are wholly unexplained by the record or any of the People’s papers in this matter and 7 months at a point late in the timeline are flimsily justified as necessary to decide the case required DNA evidence and then figure out how to get DNA evidence from defendant. The People’s own submissions demonstrate the emptiness of the claim that the police and the People did not know how to obtain defendant’s DNA and could not have figured it out sooner: not only did the assigned ADA obtain guidance on the warrant process in November of 2010—two years before the People filed their ultimately successful warrant application—but the investigator who eventually prepared the warrant application managed to figure out the procedure in part of a day. Indeed, our own case law dating back to at least 1982 provides the needed guidance on how to address this routine legal matter … . People v Regan, 2023 NY Slip Op 01353, CtApp 3-16-23

Practice Point: Although much longer pre-indictment delays have been excused, here the unexplained 38-month delay in applying for a warrant for a DNA sample from the defendant, who had been identified right away as the rapist by the complainant, violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial requiring reversal of the rape conviction.

 

, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING IN THIS PARENTAL-ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON A REPORT BY A FORENSIC EVALUATOR WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing should have been held in this parental-access proceeding:

Custody and parental access determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . “While the general right to a hearing in [parental access] cases is not absolute, where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … .

Here, the record demonstrates disputed factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issue of the mother’s parental access … . Further, the Family Court, in making its determination without a hearing, relied upon the report of the forensic evaluator, which had not been admitted into evidence, and the evaluator’s opinions and credibility were untested by the parties … . Matter of McCabe v Truglio, 2023 NY Slip Op 01299, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: Custody and parental-access determinations generally require hearings. Family Court should not rely on reports which have not been admitted in evidence.

 

,

PLAINTIFF CHANGED LANES, CUT OFF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT; DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE MOTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE IT; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AWARDED DEFENDANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the PTM defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted. Plaintiff suddenly changed lanes, cut off the PTM defendants’ truck and then plaintiff struck the car in front. The emergency doctrine applied to the PTM defendants. It is worth noting that plaintiff did not oppose the PTM defendants’ motion:

… [T]he PTM defendants submitted an affidavit from Murrel [the driver of the PTM truck], which demonstrated, prima facie, that he had a nonnegligent explanation for striking the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle and that he acted reasonably when he was faced with an emergency situation not of his own making … .  According to Murrel, prior to the accident, he was operating his vehicle behind Acevedo’s vehicle at a reasonable and safe distance. The plaintiff’s vehicle, suddenly and without warning, cut in front of Murrel’s vehicle and, seconds later, struck the rear of Acevedo’s vehicle and then came to a sudden stop. Due to traffic conditions, Murrel could not safely change lanes, and although he applied the brakes, he could not avoid colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle. Martin v PTM Mgt. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01285, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: The emergency doctrine provides a non-negligent explanation for a rear-end collision which warrants summary judgment. Here plaintiff changed lanes quickly and cut off defendants’ vehicle.

 

,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE WEATHER AT THE TIME OF THE ICE SLIP AND FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE; IN ADDITION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE WAS THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE THE FALL AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this ice slip and fall case should not have been granted: There was conflicting evidence about the weather at the time of the accident, so the storm-in-progress defense was not established. There was evidence the ice was on the sidewalk for some time before the accident and defendants did not demonstrate they lacked actual or constructive notice of the condition:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint based on the storm in progress rule. The defendants submitted transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs and the defendants’ representatives, who gave conflicting testimony as to the weather conditions at the approximate time of the accident … . In addition, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the ice upon which the injured plaintiff slipped existed prior to the day of the accident and whether the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of a preexisting condition… . Licari v Brookside Meadows, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01284, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: In an ice slip and fall, conflicting evidence of the weather at the time of the fall will not support the storm-in-progress defense at the summary judgment stage. In addition, here there was evidence the ice was there for some time before the fall and defendants did not demonstrate the lacked actual or constructive notice of it. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying Family Court) determined the evidence father derivatively neglected the son was insufficient:

Family Court’s determination that respondent derivatively neglected his son J.L. was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The finding was based entirely on the excessive corporal punishment of the daughter, which took place outside the home. There was no evidence that respondent’s excessive corporal punishment was ever directed at the older child, who was 14 years old at the time, or that he was even aware of the abuse. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the son was at risk of becoming impaired, as he continued to reside with respondent after the petitions were filed … . Matter of C.L. (Edward L.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01260, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: There was no evidence the son was even aware of father’s excessive corporal punishment of the daughter, which took place outside the home. The evidence father derivatively neglected the son was insufficient.

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED THEIR PURPOSE (ARREST WARRANT) BEFORE ENTERING THE APARTMENT; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted because there was no evidence the police announced their purpose (arrest warrant) before entering the apartment:

The hearing evidence supports findings as follows: The police executing the arrest warrant knocked and heard movement in the apartment but received no response, they announced that they were police and again received no response, and they then entered the apartment after finding that the door was unlocked. Only after opening the door, and after entering the apartment, a detective announced, “NYPD arrest warrant.” There was no evidence that in any way suggests that the police, before entering the apartment, attempted to satisfy the statutory requirement of giving “notice” of their “purpose” (CPL 120.80[4] …). Accordingly, the court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence at issue. People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 01262. First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: The did not comply with the statutory requirement that they announce their purpose, here the execution of an arrest warrant, before entering the apartment. The motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

,

INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People’s introduction of evidence of defendant’s two-year-old possession of a weapon conviction was not justified under the Molineux criteria. A police officer, Lafemina, who was aware of defendant’s prior firearm conviction and a parole warrant for defendant’s arrest, saw a bulge in defendant’s pocket which Lafemina thought could have been a firearm. The defendant ran when approached by Lafemina and, during the chase, entered and exited two buildings. Because Lafemina radioed that defendant may be armed, more that 100 officers responded to the chase. Defendant was charged with burglary based upon the building-entries. No firearm was recovered:

… [O]n the erroneous theory that defendant opened the door, the trial court admitted evidence that defendant was previously convicted of second-degree attempted criminal possession of a weapon ostensibly to explain Lafemina’s actions on the day defendant was arrested. We find this was improper. The trial court should have, but failed to follow the necessary two-step Molineux test: first, determine whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue, and then, if so, whether its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice to defendant. Instead, the court improperly relied on Santana [16 AD3d 346], which does not apply here because defendant never opened the door. …

The court erred by granting the People’s application before defendant raised any issues as to the propriety of the officers’ conduct or as to the accuracy of Lafemina’s belief that defendant was armed … . People v Woody, 2023 NY Slip Op 01263, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: Evidence of a prior conviction can be admitted if the defense “opens the door” to such evidence, even if the evidence would not be admissible under a Molineux analysis. Here the two-year-old firearm conviction was not admissible under Molineux and the defense did not “open the door” by questioning the propriety of the police conduct of the officer’s conclusion the bulge in defendant’s pocket indicated defendant was armed.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

 

,

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TWO PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL: (1) HER KNEE BUCKLED; AND (2) WHEN SHE TRIED TO STOP HER FALL BY GRABBING THE VANITY, THE VANITY MOVED FIVE INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was evidence of two proximate causes of the slip and fall: (1) plaintiff/s knee buckled when she stepped out of the shower; and (2) when plaintiff tried to stop her fall by grabbing onto the vanity, the vanity moved five inches and she fell. The building superintendent testified that a properly installed vanity would not move away from the wall:

“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and a defendant moving for summary judgment must show that it is free from fault” … . “‘Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff losing her balance due to her knee buckling was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that the defendant was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, at which she testified that, after she lost her balance due to her knee buckling and she grabbed the vanity with one hand, the vanity moved about five inches away from the wall, “and when it moved I lost my balance even more and that’s when I fell.” Moreover, the plaintiff testified that the vanity had been installed around “a couple of weeks” prior to the accident. The defendant also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the superintendent for the apartment building, who testified that a vanity which had been properly installed should not move away from the bathroom wall through “normal use.” Moe-Salley v Highbridge House Ogden, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01187, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall. Here plaintiff’s knee buckled as she stepped out of the shower. When she tried to stop her fall by grabbing the vanity, the vanity moved and she fell. There was testimony that a properly installed vanity would not move away from the wall.

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this icy-steps slip and fall case did not demonstrate they had transferred possession and control of the property such that they were not responsible for removal of ice and snow. The lease was not submitted in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords. The defendants did not submit a copy of any lease, and the deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendants had transferred possession and control of the premises … . Moreover, the deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion included testimony that the defendants were responsible for maintaining the property, including snow removal, and had engaged in snow removal on the premises. The defendants thus also failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no duty, by contract or course of conduct, to remove snow and ice from the premises … . Maharaj v Kreidenweis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01185, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant landlords did not submit the lease in support of their motion for summary judgment in this icy-step slip and fall case. Therefore the defendants did not demonstrate they were out-of-possession landlords not responsible for ice and snow removal.

 

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