You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the initial accident was not the proximate cause of the third accident in which plaintiff was injured. In the initial accident a car driven by Sheehan struck a barrier. The Sheehan car was left in the roadway.  Plaintiff, who was not injured, got out of the Sheehan car and went to a safe area. The Sheehan car was then struck by another car driven by a non-party. Plaintiff went back to the accident scene where he was injured when there was yet another collision involving a third car driven by Gilray. The majority held that the initial accident created a condition for the accident which injured plaintiff, but was not the proximate cause of that accident:

Sheehan’s negligence, if any, ” did nothing more than to furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which [plaintiff’s] injury was made possible and which was brought about by the intervention of a new, independent and efficient cause’ ” … .  Prior to the Gilray accident, the situation resulting from the first accident “was a static, completed occurrence” with plaintiff and all of the passengers of Sheehan’s vehicle safely off the roadway … . The Gilray accident arose from a “new and independent cause and not as [the] consequence of [Sheehan’s] original act[]” … . “The risk undertaken by plaintiff” in returning to the roadway was created by himself … .

FROM THE DISSENT:

Under the circumstances of this case, a factfinder could reasonably conclude that a foreseeable consequence of Sheehan’s negligence in losing control, striking the barrier, and leaving the disabled vehicle obstructing the left lane of a divided roadway without activating the flashing hazard lights at night is that motorists, unable to see the vehicle at they approached, would strike it… . In determining that the situation resulting from Sheehan’s accident was a static, completed occurrence prior to Gilray’s collision, the majority fails to account for the critical facts that the disabled vehicle was not moved safely off the roadway and instead remained in a position of peril obstructing the left lane without its flashing hazard lights activated, and that plaintiff was injured while positioned near the disabled vehicle … . Plaintiff’s positioning of himself in the area of the disabled vehicle where he was susceptible to further harm is also foreseeable. The fact that plaintiff, as a passenger involved in a vehicular accident, would leave a place of safety to return to the vehicle to speak with a responding officer—particularly where, as here, plaintiff was best positioned to provide the officer with information given the condition and preoccupation of Sheehan and the other passengers—is “an entirely normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by [Sheehan’s] negligence”… . Serrano v Gilray, 2017 NY Slip Op 05523, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PROXIMATE CAUSE, INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)

BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in the action by a real estate broker seeking a commission based upon a lease should have been granted. The broker had negotiated the original lease in 2001 and was paid a commission. The question was whether the second lease in 2011 was a renewal of the original lease or a new lease, for which no commission was due. The Fourth Department held the 2011 lease was a new lease:

… [W]e agree with defendants that they met their burden on their motion by establishing that the 2011 lease was a new lease, rather than a renewal of the 2001 lease. In support of their motion, defendants submitted evidence establishing that, under the 2011 lease, HealthNow was leasing only part of the subject building, rather than the whole building as called for under the 2001 lease. In addition, the 2011 lease called for First Columbia [landlord] to make structural changes to the building to accommodate HealthNow’s [tenant’s] changing needs, and to install a backup generator at a cost in excess of $300,000. Furthermore, the rent was higher in the 2011 lease, it was not calculated in accordance with the terms for a renewal as provided in the 2001 lease, and the 2011 lease was for a term of seven years, whereas the 2001 lease called for a renewal term of five years. Finally, defendants established that the 2011 lease was not the result of any brokerage services performed by plaintiff. Baumann Realtors, Inc. v First Columbia Century-30, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05546, 4th Dept 7-7-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/LEASES (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, COMMISSIONS, LEASES, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/COMMISSIONS (REAL ESTATE BROKERS, LEASES, , BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court should have granted the People’s request for an adjournment after two deputies did not show up for a Mapp hearing:

We agree with the People that the court erred in refusing to grant their request for an adjournment. It is well settled that “the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court”… . There are, however, well settled considerations to help guide a court in the exercise of its discretion. As relevant herein, for instance, “when [a] witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others” … . Additional relevant considerations in determining whether to grant a request for an adjournment include whether it was the moving party’s first request, whether the subject witness or witnesses would offer material testimony favorable to that party, and the degree of prejudice to the nonmovant … . Here, the deputies who conducted the warrantless search were under subpoena and were identified to the court. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court was entitled to rely on the prosecutor’s representation in open court concerning the issuance of subpoenas inasmuch as a prosecutor is an officer of the court with an ” unqualified duty of scrupulous candor’ ” … . Moreover, the request was the People’s first request for an adjournment, the testimony of the witnesses would be material and favorable to the People, and there was minimal prejudice to defendant, who had been released from custody on his own recognizance. In contrast, the People suffered severe prejudice because the refusal to grant an adjournment resulted in the suppression of all physical evidence. People v Schafer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05551, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/ADJOURNMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Although plaintiff’s decedent fell from either a ladder or a scaffold (no witnesses) there was no evidence the ladder tipped or the scaffold was defective:

“A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) by establishing that he or she was subject to an elevation-related risk, and [that] the failure to provide any safety devices to protect the worker from such a risk [was] a proximate cause of his or her injuries’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that the safety ladder used by decedent did not tip, and that the scaffolding did not collapse, tip, or shift. Decedent, himself the only witness to the accident, was unable to provide any testimony or statement concerning how the accident happened. Thus, we note that this case is unlike those cases in which the plaintiff’s version of his or her fall is uncontroverted because the plaintiff is the only witness thereto … .

It is now axiomatic that “[t]he simple fact that plaintiff fell from a ladder [or a scaffold] does not automatically establish liability on the part of [defendants]”… . Thus, we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff met her initial burden on her motion by simply establishing that decedent fell from a height. We further conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raise triable issues of fact as to, inter alia, how the accident happened, from where decedent fell—the ladder or the scaffold, and whether a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) occurred. Hastedt v Bovis Lend Lease Holdings, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05522, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

,

DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, overruling Fourth Department precedent, determined causes of action stemming from a 2009 home burglary should not have been dismissed as barred by the two year statute of limitation. The term “date of loss” in the policy was interpreted to mean the date of the claim denial, not the date of the burglary:

Plaintiff commenced this action more than two years after the 2009 theft. Interpreting the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the theft occurred, defendant contends that the action is time-barred under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff, on the other hand, interprets the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the claim was denied and, as a result, contends that the action was timely commenced. We agree with plaintiff. Despite cases holding that “date of loss” means the date of the underlying catastrophe, including cases from this Department (see Baluk v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 1151; Klawiter v CGU/OneBeacon Ins. Group, 27 AD3d 1155), the Court of Appeals has found a distinction between the generic phrase “date of loss,” and the term of art “inception of loss” (see Medical Facilities v Pryke, 95 AD2d 692, 693, affd 62 NY2d 716; Proc v Home Ins. Co., 17 NY2d 239, 243-244, rearg denied 18 NY2d 751; Steen v Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 NY 315, 322-325). As the Second Circuit noted in Fabozzi v Lexington Ins. Co. (601 F3d 88, 91), those cases have not been overruled or disavowed in any way.

Indeed, as the 1st Department recognized in Medical Facilities, “nothing in [Proc] suggests an intention to alter [the] general rule” … , which is “that an action for breach of contract commences running at the time the breach takes place” … . Thus, only the very specific “inception of loss” or other similarly “distinct language” permits using the catastrophe date as the limitations date … . Here, the policy did not contain the specific “inception of loss” or other similarly distinct language, and we thus disavow our decisions in Baluk and Klawiter to the extent that they hold otherwise.

Inasmuch as ” [a]mbiguities in an insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer’ ” … , we conclude that the two-year limitations period contained in the policy did not begin to run until “the loss [became] due and payable” … . Lobello v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05543, 4th Dept 7-7-17

INSURANCE LAW (DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (INSURANCE LAW, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)

EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined father’s petition to modify custody should not have been denied without a hearing. The evidence that mother had been arrested for a drug offense, in addition to allegations of corporal punishment by mother’s boyfriend, were enough to warrant a hearing:

We  … agree with the father that he made a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing with respect to certain remaining allegations in the amended petition. It was undisputed that the mother was facing prosecution for criminal possession of a controlled substance in Georgia. Although the mother submitted a negative drug test in support of her motion, the drug test was performed on a hair follicle sample that she submitted well after her arrest, and the assertions by the mother’s attorney regarding how far back such a test could detect drug use raises an issue to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing, not on a motion to dismiss. Considering the mother’s history of drug and alcohol addiction, as acknowledged by the parties in the parenting agreement, we conclude that the allegation that the mother was arrested and being prosecuted for criminal possession of a controlled substance is sufficient to warrant a hearing … , inasmuch as such conduct, including the mother’s possible unlawful use of a controlled substance, “is plainly relevant to her fitness as a parent” … . Matter of Farner v Farner, 2017 NY Slip Op 05545, 4th Dept 7-7-17

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT)

,

DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and its contractors had the right to enter respondent’s property to test for gasoline contamination without signing an access agreement with the property owner. The property owner had refused entry to DEC contractors because its proposed access agreement was rejected by the DEC. The Fourth Department further determined a declaratory judgment action was the appropriate vehicle for the relief requested by the DEC and converted the action accordingly:

We … agree with the DEC that the Oil Spill Act authorizes it and its contractors or agents to enter suspected spill sites. Navigation Law § 178 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he department is hereby authorized to enter and inspect any property or premises for the purpose of inspecting facilities and investigating either actual or suspected sources of discharges or violation of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to this article.  * * *

Where an unregulated discharge takes place, … the “person” responsible “shall immediately undertake to contain such discharge” … . As this does not always occur, “the [DEC] may undertake the removal of such discharge and may retain agents and contractors who shall operate under the direction of [the DEC] for such purposes” … , and in reading the Act’s sections together to best effectuate the Legislature’s intended objectives … , we conclude that the DEC’s contractors who “operate under the direction of [the DEC]” to investigate and remediate suspected and actual discharges of petroleum are authorized by statute, like the DEC, to enter the subject property for such purposes without acceding to landowner access agreements, but remaining subject only to restrictions imposed by law. Matter of State of New York (Essex Prop. Mgt., LLC), 2017 NY Slip Op 05525, 4th Dept 7-7-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM  WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/NAVIGATION LAW (GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/OIL SPILL LAW  (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/GASOLINE CONTAMINATION (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)

,

LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly declared invalid a local law which conflicted with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The local law allowed the classification of a restaurant with a drive-through window as a Type I project. However, the Fourth Department held the intent of SEQRA was to classify such a restaurant as a Type II project:

We … conclude that the court properly declared that Local Law No. 9-2014 is invalid inasmuch as it is inconsistent with 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (7) to the extent that it classifies “[d]rive-through stations or windows” such as “restaurants” as Type I actions under SEQRA. A local law that is “inconsistent with SEQRA” must be invalidated … . Here, although 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (7) does not explicitly include the construction of a restaurant with a drive-through window as a Type II action, we conclude that the Department of Environmental Conservation contemplated restaurants with drive-through windows as Type II actions when it promulgated that regulation … . We similarly conclude that the court properly annulled defendant’s classification of the project as a Type I action on the ground that the classification was affected by an error of law inasmuch as Local Law No. 9-2014 is inconsistent with SEQRA … . Nonetheless, the court should have declined to accept, without a revised review by defendant, plaintiff’s contention that the project should be classified as a Type II action … . We therefore modify the judgment by annulling the determination that the project is a Type II action, and we remit the matter to defendant for a new determination. Miranda Holdings, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Orchard Park, 2017 NY Slip Op 05554, 4th Dept 7-7-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT)/SEQRA (LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT)

,

TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the trooper who stopped defendant’s vehicle did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time the trooper asked questions which amounted to a De Bour level two inquiry:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of possessing or transporting 30,000 or more unstamped cigarettes … . When a State Trooper pulled over defendant for speeding on Interstate 81, he noticed “several large nylon bags” with “square edged contours” filling the area behind the driver’s seat. The Trooper initially asked defendant what was inside the bags, i.e., whether there was luggage in the bags, and defendant gave a series of increasingly implausible answers, including “clothing,” “presents,” “riding toys,” and “bicycles.” Defendant asked if he could leave, but the Trooper instead requested that he exit the vehicle while the Trooper spoke to two passengers. When the Trooper returned to speak to defendant, but before he advised defendant of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted that the bags contained nearly 300 cartons of untaxed cigarettes purchased from an Indian reservation.

We conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence and statements at issue. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, our rationale is not grounded in custody and/or Miranda issues. “In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . Here, defendant was not in custody during his temporary roadside detention, and it was permissible for the Trooper to engage in a reasonable interrogation of defendant without first advising him of his Miranda rights … .

We conclude, however, that the Trooper’s initial inquiry concerning the contents of the bags constituted a level two common-law inquiry, which required a founded suspicion of criminality that was not present at the time … . Indeed, we note that nervousness, fidgeting, and illogical or contradictory responses to level one inquiries do not permit an officer to escalate an encounter to a level two De Bour confrontation … . Here, the facts are even more strongly in favor of defendant inasmuch as defendant’s evasive and inconsistent answers were themselves induced by a level two inquiry from the Trooper. Because a founded suspicion of criminality did not arise until after the Trooper asked defendant what was inside the bags, the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence. People v Gates, 2017 NY Slip Op 05549, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/STREET STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (STREET STOP, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/DE BOUR (LEVEL TWO INQUIRY, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

,

THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the identification testimony by a police officer was unreliable because the photograph upon which the officer’s identification was based was not put in evidence at the hearing. A new trial was ordered. The dissent noted that this is the first case holding an identification unreliable where an unduly suggestive police identification procedure was not involved:

At the hearing, the People attempted to introduce in evidence a photograph that was allegedly used by the undercover officer. The court refused to admit the photograph in evidence, however, on the grounds that the People failed to produce it during discovery and that, in their discovery responses, the People expressly denied the existence of any photographs in the People’s possession. Thus, the photograph, i.e., the linchpin to the undercover officer’s identification of defendant, was not before the court, and we conclude that its absence created a presumption of unreliability in the pretrial identification of defendant by the undercover officer … .

We further note that the People failed to adduce any evidence detailing the procedures used to obtain the photograph at issue … . The undercover officer testified that he was given the name “Kevin Reeves” by a confidential informant. The confidential informant did not testify. Significantly, the officer could not recall if the confidential informant gave him any identifying factors about “Kevin Reeves” such as height, description, or skin color. The officer testified that he entered the name “Kevin Reeves” into a law enforcement computer database and that his search resulted in a photograph that he printed and viewed after the drug transaction. The officer did not testify, however, as to which search criteria he used, how many photos he viewed in response to his search criteria, and how he may have distinguished among more than one photograph generated by his search. As a result of the above shortcomings in the People’s evidence, we conclude that the People failed to rebut the presumption of unreliability of the pretrial identification created by the absence of the photograph … .

FROM THE DISSENT:

I do not believe that there is any legal basis to suppress identification testimony of a defendant based on the alleged unreliability of the witness’s identification unless the identification is the product of unduly suggestive police procedures … . Indeed, a suppression court is not required to make “a threshold inquiry into the reliability of . . . identification testimony” … , and “the reliability of untainted in-court identification testimony presents an issue of fact for jury resolution’ “… .

This is the first reported case in New York where identification testimony has been suppressed in the absence of a finding that the identification was influenced by unduly suggestive police procedures. People v Reeves, 2017 NY Slip Op 05526, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION,  THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)

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