You are here: / Evidence
,

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.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE TRIPPED OVER A HOSE HE HAD PLACED ON THE STEPS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INADEQUATE LIGHTING WAS ANOTHER PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff apparently tripped over a hose he had placed on a step. Plaintiff alleged he didn’t see the hose because the light fixture was not working. The court noted that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (the hose and the lighting):

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and [g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether inadequate lighting in the area of the subject steps contributed to the plaintiff’s accident … .

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a premises liability case may also establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the allegedly hazardous condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Here, the deposition testimony of the defendant’s witness that he would have known if the light fixture near the steps was not working was conclusory and speculative, and failed to address the adequacy of the lighting, even assuming that the light fixture was working … . Reyes v S. Nicolia & Sons Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00340, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall. Here plaintiff tripped over a hose he had placed on the steps and he alleged he didn’t see the hose because of inadequate lighting. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Supreme Court initially denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment because the proof the notice of default was properly mailed was insufficient. The bank made a motion for leave to renew and submitted an affidavit which Supreme Court deemed sufficient. The Second Department held that the bank’s failure to explain why the affidavit wasn’t produced for the bank’s initial motion precluded renewal:

In support of that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Alicia Hernandez, who averred that the required notice of default was mailed by first-class mail and that the address to which the notice of default was sent was the actual notice address. The only explanation offered by the plaintiff for its failure to submit the Hernandez affidavit on its prior motion was that it reasonably believed that the evidentiary submission it had made on the prior motion was sufficient to establish its prima facie case. This contention is devoid of merit. “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . In the instant matter, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any valid reason why the Hernandez affidavit could not have been submitted on its prior motion. Since the Hernandez affidavit was submitted without demonstrating a reasonable justification for failing to submit it on the prior motion, renewal should have been denied … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v EY Bay Ridge, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00311, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, the bank’s failure to explain why proof of proper mailing of the notice of default was not presented in the initial summary judgment motion required the denial of the bank’s motion for leave to renew.

 

,

DEFENDANT SUPERMARKET DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GRAPES ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted; Defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the grapes on the floor because it presented no specific evidence of when the area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the fall:

While defendant showed that it did not create or have actual notice of loose grapes in the produce aisle at the time of plaintiff’s accident, defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to show, as a matter of law, that it lacked constructive notice of the condition. Specifically, defendant failed to show that its cleaning routine was followed on the day of the accident … . Its store manager testified generally that an employee was assigned to inspect and clean the produce aisle throughout the day and that he personally walked the aisles during the day, but he did not testify regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question on the day of plaintiff’s fall. A vice president testified that the cleaning protocols were verbal and were based on “common sense,” but did not offer any information as to what steps were taken during the last cleaning cycle prior to plaintiff’s accident, which also was not sufficient to establish lack of constructive notice on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the burden did not shift to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Polanco v 756 Jomo Food Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00284, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case the defendant must demonstrate a lack of constructive notice by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S RAPE CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON HIS UNCORROBORATED ADMISSION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of rape in the second degree, determined there was no corroboration of defendant’s admission to having sex with the victim. Therefore, the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

After reviewing the record, we find no evidence corroborating defendant’s admission that he and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse “a few times” in August 2017. Due to the lack of corroboration, the evidence is legally insufficient to support that conviction, and the charge under count 1 must be dismissed … . People v Bateman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00249, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: A conviction which rests solely on an uncorroborated admission is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

 

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