You are here: / Evidence
,

THE PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT WHEN DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND ANOTHER VEHICLE WAS BASED ON SPECULATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff made a left turn in front of defendant who had the right of way:

… [D]efendant met his initial burden of establishing that he was not negligent because he had the right-of-way while traveling along Route 5, was operating his vehicle in a lawful and prudent manner, and was traveling at a lawful rate of speed, and that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident, which occurred when plaintiff suddenly turned left into defendant’s lane of travel … . We further conclude that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to the motion … . Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the deposition testimony did not raise an issue of fact whether defendant was negligently passing another vehicle on the right in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1123 at the time of the collision. Although there is conflicting deposition testimony concerning the precise lane in which defendant was traveling at the time of the collision, there is no dispute that defendant never changed lanes while driving along Route 5 at the time of the collision. Thus, plaintiff’s assertion that defendant unsafely attempted to go around another vehicle at the time of the accident ” ‘is based on speculation and is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Gomez v Buczynski, 2023 NY Slip Op 00771, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The traffic accident was caused by plaintiff’s making a left turn in front of defendant’s oncoming car when defendant had the right of way. Plaintiff’s affidavit alleging defendant was attempting to go around another car at the time of the accident was based on speculation which was not sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT EVEN IF DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY FRISKED AND DETAINED OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE, THE DEPUTY’S SEEING COCAINE ON THE DRIVER’S SEAT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE OBSERVATION OF THE DRUGS WAS A PRODUCT OF THE ILLEGAL FRISK AND DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle was properly denied. After observing what appeared to be a drug transaction the defective called for assistance. As one of the deputies approached defendant’s vehicle, defendant got out and walked toward the deputy. The deputy frisked the defendant, found nothing and told defendant to wait behind his vehicle. The deputy then walked to defendant’s vehicle where he saw a rolled up dollar bill and white powder on the driver’s seat. The dissent argued the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion of a crime when defendant was frisked and his observation of the drugs in the car was a product of the illegal detention of defendant:

The court properly determined that, based on the totality of the observations by the detective, which he communicated with the deputy … , the deputy had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in a drug transaction … . In any event, “the seizure of [the items inside the vehicle] was not the result of the allegedly illegal detention of defendant, who was outside the parked vehicle when the police officer approached and detained him” … . Even if the deputy had not detained defendant, he could have simply walked up to the vehicle, looked in the window, and observed the drugs in plain view on the driver’s seat. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the deputy’s observations of the rolled-up dollar bill and white powdery substance provided probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of drugs … . People v Messano, 2023 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was frisked and detained as he walked toward the deputy from his car. The deputy then looked inside defendant’s car a saw drugs. The majority held that even if defendant was illegally detained outside the car, the deputy’s observation of the drugs justified the search. The two-justice dissent argued the observation of the drugs was the product of the illegal detention.

 

,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WAS MONITORING A WIRETAP WHEN DEFENDANT WAS OVERHEARD IN A CALL WHICH HAD ORIGINATED FROM THE COUNTY JAIL; LOCAL POLICE WERE ALERTED TO THE CONVERSATION AND THE POLICE OBTAINED THE RECORDING FROM THE JAIL; ALTHOUGH THE JAIL RECORDING WAS NOT AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 700.70, IT WAS EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSTION” TRIGGERING THE CPL 700.70 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the appellate division, determined the failure to provide defendant with notice of a recorded phone conversation was improper. The Attorney General’s office was monitoring a wiretap in an unrelated case when defendant was overheard in a call originating from the county jail talking about a fatal hit-and-run accident. Local police were informed of the defendant’s conversation and they obtained a recording of it made by the county jail. The jail recording, which was introduced at trial, was not an “intercepted conversation” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law 700.70. But the conversation overheard pursuant to the wiretap which alerted the police to the jail conversation was an “intercepted conversation” which triggered the CPL 700.70 notice:

The People produced the recording … to defendant in discovery but did not furnish defendant with a copy of the wiretap warrant and underlying application within the fifteen-day period prescribed by CPL 700.70. Several months after defendant was arraigned, the People informed defendant by letter that the police were “alerted” to the call by the wiretap. Defendant moved to preclude the call from evidence on the grounds that the People failed to adhere to the CPL 700.70 notice procedure. * * *

The substance of the wiretap recording informed law enforcement that the same conversation had been recorded by [jail], leading the Syracuse Police directly to the recording that the People used as evidence at defendant’s trial. In listening to the wiretap, a detective heard incriminating statements about the hit-and-run, identified defendant as the declarant, and directed authorities to the [jail] recording. Clearly, the [jail] call is evidence derived from the wiretap. … [I]t is not certain that police investigating the hit-and-run would otherwise have discovered the call—indeed, the inmate who placed the call had no apparent connection to the hit-and-run incident. Because the wiretap was an “intercepted communication,” the People’s failure to timely furnish defendant with a copy of the eavesdropping warrant and underlying application precluded the admission of the wiretap recording and any evidence derived therefrom—namely, the jail recording—into evidence at trial … . People v Myers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00691, CtApp 2-9-23

Practice Point: Recorded jail conversations are not considered “intercepted conversations” triggering the notice requirements of CPL 700.70. But here the police were alerted to the jail conversation by monitoring a wiretap in an unrelated case. Therefore the jail’s recording of the conversation was evidence derived from an “intercepted conversation” triggering the CPL 700.70 notice requirements.

 

,

THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT; THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO PRECLUDE THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the evidence defendant knew the codefendant was armed and shared the codefendant’s intent to cause serious injury was legally insufficient. Although the robbery second conviction was based on legally sufficient evidence, an unnoticed statement was allowed in evidence at trial, a reversible error:

… [D]efendant is entitled to a new trial on the second-degree robbery count. The People should not have been permitted to submit evidence of defendant’s August 9, 2016 statement to a detective regarding defendant’s discussion with the victim about the value of the latter’s jewelry because this statement was not properly noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(a). Although the People disclosed the interview generally, they did not disclose this particular statement … . At a suppression hearing, defendant only moved to suppress other statements not at issue on appeal, and the statement at issue was first revealed during trial testimony, at which time defendant moved for preclusion on the ground of lack of notice. People v Weathers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00741, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: If the People attempt to introduce a statement made by the defendant which was not provided in the CPL 710.30 notice, and no motion to suppress the statement had been made, introduction of the statement at trial must be precluded. In this case, it was not enough that the People disclosed the interview from which the statement was taken. No notice of the specific statement had been provided.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and suppressing his postarrest statement, determined the People did not meet their “burden of coming forward” with proof of the legality of police conduct. The fact that some of the gaps in the proof might have been filled by the defendant’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not cure the defect:

The People failed to submit evidence sufficient to support the suppression court’s findings, thus failing to meet their burden of coming forward … . Although the officers who arrested defendant were not required to testify, the People’s initial evidentiary presentation, consisting of the testimony of the investigating detective, was insufficient to permit the inference that information constituting probable cause was transmitted by the detective to the officers effectuating the arrest of defendant, as required to meet the People’s prima facie burden of establishing the legality of the challenged police conduct and shift the burden of persuasion to defendant … . Although defendant testified after the People rested, we need not consider whether defendant’s testimony before the suppression court could have been used to remedy deficiencies in the People’s presentation. As the People repeatedly informed the court, they relied solely on the detective’s testimony to meet their burden. Further, the suppression court discredited defendant’s testimony as “unworthy of belief” and based its decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress solely on the testimony of the detective, which it credited. People v Watkins, 2023 NY Slip Op 00742, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: The People have a burden of proof at a suppression hearing called the “burden of going forward.” To meet the burden the People was demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Here there was no evidence the officers who arrested the defendant were aware of the statement by the codefendant which was the basis for the arrest. Therefore defendant’s postarrest statement should have been suppressed.

 

, , ,

BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S THEORY, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO CALL A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR $1000 TO HIRE A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge (1) should not have instructed the jury that possession of a weapon is presumptive evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully against another (2) should not have prevented defendant from calling as a witness a nurse practitioner who treated him at a psychiatric facility and (3) should have granted defendant’s request pursuant to the County Law for $1000 to hire a psychiatric expert:

County Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the presumption set forth in Penal Law § 265.15 (4) concerning the possession of weapons, i.e., that the possession by any person of any weapon is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another. Pursuant to the statute, that presumption applies only where the defendant possesses the weapon in question (see Penal Law § 265.15 [4] …). Here, the People did not proceed on any theory that defendant had possession of the weapon at issue. … .

… [T]he court abused its discretion by precluding defendant from calling a proposed witness at trial, namely, a nurse practitioner who treated him at the Mohawk Valley Psychiatric Center prior to the incident, on the grounds that her testimony was not relevant and that defendant failed to give timely notice under CPL 250.10 (1) (c). It is well settled that “[a criminal] defendant has a fundamental right to call witnesses in his [or her] own behalf” … . Here, defendant established that the proposed witness would have provided relevant testimony with respect to his defense and also established good cause for the delay in the notice, and the People failed to establish any prejudice … .

“Pursuant to County Law § 722-c, upon a finding of necessity, a court shall authorize expert services on behalf of a defendant, and only in extraordinary circumstances may a court provide for compensation in excess of $1,000 per expert” … . Here, we conclude that the court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s application on the sole ground that defendant had a retained attorney … . People v Osman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: Based on the People’s theory the jury should not have been instructed that possession of weapon is presumptive evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully against another. The defendant’s request to call a witness who could offer relevant evidence should not have been denied where the delay in notification was explained and there was no prejudice. The defendant’s request pursuant to the County Law for $1000 to hire a psychiatric expert should have been granted.

 

, ,

MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH ECUADORIAN STATUTE IS MOST CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO NEW YORK’S FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE; HERE THE ACTION ACCRUED IN ECUADOR; THE SHORTER OF THE APPLICABLE ECUADORIAN AND NEW YORK STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter for consideration of the expert evidence, determined Supreme Court may have applied the wrong Ecuadorian statute in the analysis of the statute of limitations under the borrowing statute:

Under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” where a nonresident plaintiff sues on causes of action that accrued outside of New York, the claims must be timely under the limitations period of both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued … . In effect, the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations controls the timeliness of the action … . …

If the foreign state does not have causes of action directly analogous to the New York causes of action, the limitations period of the foreign causes of action that are most closely analogous to the New York claims are to be applied … . …

In performing the foregoing analysis, the motion court found applicable Ecuador’s default statute, which has a 10-year statute of limitations, and thereby found plaintiff’s claims timely filed, despite the expert testimony establishing that Ecuador’s default statute is not directly applicable to plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance claims and not the Ecuadorian cause of action most closely analogous to the New York causes of action. Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v Occidental Petroleum Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 00481, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent conveyance action accrued in Ecuador. Under the borrowing statute the shorter of the New York and Ecuadorian statutes of limitations applies. Where, as here, there is no foreign statute exactly analogous to the New York cause of action, expert evidence about which foreign statute is most analogous should be considered.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER THE POLICE, WHO DID NOT APPLY FOR A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL UNDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS), THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN UNAUTHORIZED NO-KNOCK ENTRY AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the issue whether the police did not give proper notice to the occupants prior to entering and searching premises was not preserved for appeal. The two dissenters argued the issue can be addressed by the appellate court under the ineffective-assistance argument (no motion to suppress based on failure to provide proper notice before entering) and the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The police did not apply for a no-knock warrant and, according to the dissent, entered the apartment using a battering ram before announcing their presence:

… [T]he record is silent as to what the police said or did prior to effectuating entry into the apartment. Thus, without resort to inappropriate speculation, it simply cannot be concluded from the record before us that the police failed to knock and announce their presence before forcefully entering the apartment. * * *

From the dissent:

In our view, the record confirms, by the police officers’ own trial testimony, that they did not provide any advance notice prior to entering the apartment where defendant was ultimately apprehended. The record shows that members of the involved emergency response team (hereinafter ERT) entered the apartment through a rear door into a kitchen area that led to a living room. When asked how the door was opened, Jason Blowers — a police officer with the City of Johnstown Police Department — explained that “the breacher opened the door, the mechanical breach . . . . He hit the door with a ram.” Sergeant Michael Pendrick, the first member of the ERT to enter the apartment, confirmed as much, testifying: “[a]s we approached the rear apartment door . . . another officer had breached the door, the door popped open.” People v Hayward, 2023 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The majority found the record silent on whether the police, who did not apply for a no-knock warrant, entered the apartment without giving proper notice to the occupants and held the issue was not preserved for appeal. The two-justice dissent argued the issue could be addressed on appeal as ineffective-assistance (failure to move to suppress) and the evidence demonstrated the police entered with a battering ram before announcing their presence.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing or compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … . Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and a chain of purported allonges ending with an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were on pieces of paper completely separate from the note, were “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

Johnson’s [the foreclosure specialist’s] affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …  Further, Johnson’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Fay’s [plaintiff’s loan servicer’s] relationship with LenderLive [third-party vendor which sent the RPAPL 1304 notice] and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Fay’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Johnson’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 …) . US Bank N.A. v Okoye-Oyibo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note; therefore the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action was not demonstrated.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES HE SUFFERED FROM DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF CONTRACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to submit evidence of the exact amount of damages he suffered due to defendant’s breach of contract. Therefore plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment:

“A motion for summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” … . “The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence establishing the exact amount of damages that he sustained as a result of defendant’s breaches of the parties’ agreements, and “the record does not permit precise determination of the amount of the money judgment to which the plaintiff is entitled, including a calculation of prejudgment interest” … . Spilman v Matyas, 2023 NY Slip Op 00344, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here, on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff proved defendant’s breach of contract but did not present evidence of the exact amount of damages he suffered. Therefore the motion should not have been granted.

 

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