Cheeks v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 532

Background

Cha-Nell, 5½ weeks old, died from malnutrition; autopsy confirmed malnutrition with no detectable digestive defect.
Detective Faust arrested Tatiana Cheeks, Cha-Nell’s sole custodian, in May 1998 based on autopsy findings and concluded neglect; charges were later dismissed.
Cheeks sued the City of New York for false arrest and malicious prosecution after dismissal of charges.
Plaintiff’s trial accepted expert theory of failure to thrive; detective relied on autopsy conclusion that death was malnutrition and not due to internal defect.
Jury ruled for Cheeks on false arrest/malicious prosecution; panel majority reversed, remanding for retrial due to erroneous redaction of the autopsy report; concurrence argued probable cause existed but granted a new trial on redaction error.
The lead opinion in this concurrence emphasizes probable cause as a matter of law but supports a new trial to cure prejudice from the autopsy report’s redacted portion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause for arrest as a matter of law?	Cheeks argues lack of probable cause given failure-to-thrive theory.	City contends autopsy showing malnutrition with no internal defect provided probable cause.	Probable cause existed as a matter of law; dispute over likelihood of crime did not preclude dismissal of the case.
Admissibility of the unredacted autopsy report and opening the door issue	Redaction biased the jury; unredacted portion should have been admitted to cure prejudice.	Redaction was proper; there was no door-opening for unredacted content.	Remand for new trial due to trial court’s erroneous handling of redaction and door-opening.
Whether the verdict should be set aside or a new trial granted on evidentiary grounds	If prejudicial evidence tainted the trial, the verdict should be dismissed or damages reconsidered.	Trial court’s ruling was within discretion; no reversible error.	Court should grant a new trial on damages or remand for retrial to address evidentiary error.
Standard of review for probable cause when facts may be in dispute	Disputes over evidence should go to jury for probable cause determination.	Where undisputed facts yield a single inference, court may decide as a matter of law.	In this case, disputed inferences justified jury consideration of probable cause.
Impact of grandmother’s statements and other pre-arrest evidence on probable cause	Grandmother’s statements and attempts to seek medical care should undermine probable cause.	Probable cause anchored in autopsy findings and caretaker status; other statements do not negate it.	Probable cause existed based on autopsy and caregiving status; other evidence did not defeat probable cause.

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. Caputo, 95 AD3d 262 (1st Dept 2012) (reversed by Court of Appeals; probative inference question reserved for trial/appeal)
Agront v City of New York, 294 AD2d 189 (1st Dept 2002) (probable cause and inferences may be contested; not always law at issue)
Parkin v. Cornell Univ., 78 NY2d 523 (1991) (probable cause is a question of law where no real dispute exists as to facts)
Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 87 AD2d 381 (1st Dept 1982) (probable cause review—conflicting evidence for jury)
Smith v. County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18 (1974) (jury appropriate where multiple reasonable inferences exist)
Campbell v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Trans. Auth., 81 AD2d 529 (1st Dept 1981) (evidentiary rulings and door-opening issues)
Walters v. State of New York, 125 Misc 2d 604 (Ct Cl 1984) (admissibility of autopsy conclusions for non-truth purposes)
Sital v City of New York, 60 AD3d 465 (1st Dept 2009) (probable cause depends on credibility of witnesses and evidence, not isolated statements)
Eberle v. City of New York, 265 AD2d 881 (4th Dep 1999) (expert testimony must be based on professional knowledge, not police-derived inferences)
Stile v City of New York, 172 AD2d 743 (2d Dept 1991) (false arrest where evidence insufficient to establish probable cause)