author: Chief Judge Lippman. Graffeo, J. (concurring).

text:
    [920 NE2d 943, 892 NYS2d 836]
    In the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Singer, Deceased. Vivian Singer, Respondent; Alexander Singer, Appellant.
    Argued October 15, 2009;
    decided December 15, 2009

      POINTS OF COUNSEL

      Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP, New York City (Gary B. Freidman and Jeffrey H. Sheetz of counsel), for appellant.
    I. The Appellate Division’s decision and order should be reversed because it misconstrued EPTL 3-3.5 (b) (3) (D) and SCPA 1404 (4) as absolute limitations on a beneficiary’s inquiry into the validity of a will, rather than as safe harbors, contrary to the twin policy objectives of those provisions. (Matter of Muller, 138 Misc 2d 966; Matter of Marshall, 11 Misc 3d 674.) II. The Appellate Division’s decision and order should also be reversed because it conflicts with prior case law requiring at least the propounding of objections before a forfeiture under an in terrorem clause can be found. (Matter of Stiehler, 133 Misc 2d 253; Matter of Ellis, 252 AD2d 118, 93 NY2d 805; Matter of Fairbairn, 46 AD3d 973, 10 NY3d 708; Matter of Cronin, 143 Misc 559, 237 App Div 856; Matter of Robbins, 144 Misc 2d 510.)

      Law Office of Jack Kint, New York City {Jack M. Kint, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
    I. The Appellate Division correctly affirmed the Surrogate’s judgment that Alexander Singer violated Rabbi Singer’s no-contest conditions. (Matter of Ellis, 252 AD2d 118; Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236; Williams v Jones, 166 NY 522; Matter of Bieley, 91 NY2d 520; Matter of Lang, 60 Misc 2d 232; Eidt v Eidt, 203 NY 325; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v Stecker,
      3 NY2d 1; Matter of Cohn, 29 Misc 2d 661; Matter of Stiehler, 133 Misc 2d 253; Matter of Fairbairn, 46 AD3d 973, 10 NY3d 708.) II. The Appellate Division correctly affirmed the Surrogate’s judgment that the statutory safe harbor for preliminary discovery did not protect Alexander Singer’s examination of the attorney who drafted Rabbi Singer’s prior will. (Pultz v Economakis, 10 NY3d 542; Finger Lakes Racing Assn. v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 45 NY2d 471; Matter of Kirkholder, 86 Misc 692; Smithsonian Institution v Meech, 169 US 398; Matter of Roth, 7 Misc 3d 1010[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50521[U]; Matter of Zurkow, 74 Misc 2d 736; Matter of Ellis, 252 AD2d 118; Gentile v State Bar of Nev., 501 US 1030; Matter of Clark, 52 Misc 2d 965; Pajak v Pajak, 56 NY2d 394.) III. The Appellate Division correctly affirmed the Surrogate’s judgment that Alexander Singer must forfeit his inheritance. (Matter of Pritchard, 138 Misc 2d 945; Matter of Ellis, 252 AD2d 118; Board of Educ. of Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., Towns of Huntington & Babylon v Roseman, 52 AD2d 855; Matter of Muller, 138 Misc 2d 966.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Chief Judge Lippman.

We conclude that the statutory safe harbor provisions of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1404 and Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 3-3.5 are not exhaustive and that, under the circumstances of this case, respondent Alexander Singer’s conduct did not violate the in terrorem clauses of the decedent’s probated will.

Rabbi Joseph Singer executed a last will and testament dated April 15, 2003, appointing his daughter, Vivian, as executor. Under the terms of the corresponding revocable trust agreement, testator directed that his Brooklyn home, the bulk of his tangible personal property and the sum of $200,000 were bequeathed to Vivian “in recognition of her unusual dedication to [testator] and for the taking care of [testator. Testator] realizes that his daughter gave her life to take care of him and feels a great sense of gratitude toward her.” The trust agreement also provided that each of Alexander’s sons would receive $15,000 and the remainder of the estate would be split equally between Vivian and Alexander.

The will contained two in terrorem clauses—one that was directed to any beneficiary and the other applicable to Alexander in particular. The first in terrorem clause provides:

“If any beneficiary shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest, object to or oppose, or attempt to contest, object to or oppose, the probate of or validity of this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me, or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, or any of the provisions of this Will or of the revocable trust agreement created by me, in any court or commence or prosecute any legal proceeding of any kind in any court to set aside this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, then in that event, such beneficiary, and all of such beneficiary’s issue, shall forfeit and cease to have any right or interest whatsoever under this Will or under the revocable trust agreement created by me, or in any portion of my estate, and, in such event, I hereby direct that my estate and the trust estate under such revocable trust agreement shall be disposed of in all respects as if such beneficiary had predeceased me without issue.”

The following paragraph, pertaining to Alexander, stated:

“I specifically direct that my son, Alexander I. Singer, not contest, object to or oppose this Will or The Joseph Singer Revocable Trust Agreement, or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, and I specifically direct that my son not take my daughter, Vivian S. Singer, to a Bet Din (religious court) or to any other court for any reason whatsoever; and I specifically direct that if my son takes any such action or brings on any such proceeding, neither my son nor any of his issue shall receive any share of my estate, whether passing under this Will, under The Joseph Singer Revocable Trust Agreement or otherwise.”

Similar clauses appeared in the revocable trust agreement.

Rabbi Singer died March 5, 2004 and Vivian submitted the will for probate March 25, 2004. The following day, Alexander served a notice of discovery and inspection under CPLR article 31 and SCPA 1404 seeking copies of various documents and the deposition of certain witnesses, including Singer’s previous attorney, Joseph Katz. Vivian’s attorney wrote a letter to Alexander’s counsel, expressing his concern that Mr. Katz was not a proper witness for an SCPA 1404 examination and indicating his belief that Alexander would be contesting the will within the meaning of the in terrorem clause by such examination, thereby forfeiting any inheritance. Alexander’s attorney disagreed and proceeded to depose Mr. Katz.

Katz testified that he had no reason to believe that Rabbi Singer lacked testamentary capacity or that Vivian exercised undue influence over him. Katz explained that he had drafted the Rabbi’s seven previous wills and indicated that there had been a history of conflict between the siblings concerning how the Rabbi’s estate would be distributed. In addition, Katz testified that the previous will he had drafted in 2002 had also contained an in terrorem clause in order to reassure Vivian that Alexander would not contest the estate plan.

The will was admitted to probate May 19, 2005. The decree specified that objections had not been filed and probate had not been contested. Vivian then commenced this construction proceeding, seeking a declaration that Alexander violated the in terrorem clauses of the will by deposing Mr. Katz.

Surrogate’s Court determined “that examination of parties not specified in SCPA 1404 (4) violates an in terrorem clause” and that Alexander had violated the discovery limits established by the Legislature (17 Misc 3d 365, 369 [2007]). The court then determined that Alexander violated the in terrorem clauses of testator’s will and revoked his bequest. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that Alexander’s conduct violated the in terrorem clauses as an attempt to contest the will and that the deposition of testator’s former attorney did not fall within the safe harbor provisions of EPTL 3-3.5 and SCPA 1404 (52 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2008]). We granted leave to appeal (11 NY3d 716 [2009]) and now reverse.

The paramount consideration in will construction proceedings is the testator’s intent (Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236, 239 [1957]). In that context, while in terrorem clauses are enforceable, they are “not favored and [must be] strictly construed” (Matter of Fairbairn, 46 AD3d 973, 974 [3d Dept 2007] [citation omitted], Iv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]). Despite the presence of an in terrorem clause in a will, EPTL 3-3.5 provides that certain conduct by a beneficiary will not result in forfeiture— specifically, as relevant here, “[t]he preliminary examination, under SCPA 1404, of a proponent’s witnesses, the person who prepared the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding” (EPTL 3-3.5 [b] [3] [D]). Under the SCPA, these individuals “may be examined as to all relevant matters which may be the basis of objections to the probate of the propounded instrument” (SCPA 1404 [4]).

The issue presented here is whether Alexander violated the in terrorem clauses by going beyond the statutory safe harbor and deposing testator’s former attorney. Although the statutes include only a few particular groups, circumstances may exist such that it is permissible to depose persons outside the statutory parameters without suffering forfeiture.

The Practice Commentaries indicate that the trend has been for courts “to allow broad latitude in discovery of matters that could provide the basis for objections” and that the Legislature intended to balance the testator’s right to prevent unwarranted will contests against the beneficiary’s right to investigate in order to evaluate the risk involved in contesting the will notwithstanding the in terrorem clause (Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1404, at 178-179; Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 3-3.5, at 451-452).

Moreover, when the statutes were amended in 1992 to allow for the examination of the preparer of the will, the Legislature indicated that the amendments were intended to ratify the public policy stated in Matter of Muller (138 Misc 2d 966 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 1988]), which had interpreted EPTL 3-3.5 broadly to allow the production of prior wills (L 1992, ch 127). The court in Muller noted that there is only a small risk that a potential objectant will pursue frivolous objections with the threat of complete disinheritance hanging overhead in the form of an in terrorem clause (see Muller, 138 Misc 2d at 968).

Since the statutory safe harbor is not exclusive, the crucial inquiry is whether this conduct violated the testator’s intent. Although it is clear that Rabbi Singer intended to prevent Alexander from contesting the will, these in terrorem provisions can reasonably be interpreted to express testator’s wish that Alexander not commence court proceedings of any type against the estate plan. The first clause seeks to prevent any beneficiary from contesting or attempting to contest the will or the trust agreement “in any court” and to prevent any legal proceeding to invalidate either document. Further, the clause that is specific to Alexander directs that he not take his sister “to a Bet Din (religious court) or to any other court for any reason whatsoever."

Under these circumstances, and construing the clauses narrowly, the conduct of this deposition did not amount to an attempt to contest, object to or oppose the validity of the estate plan. Interpreting the clauses too broadly would frustrate the public policy of ensuring that wills are genuine and valid before they are admitted to probate (see SCPA 1408 [1] [“Before admitting a will to probate the court must inquire particularly into all the facts and must be satisfied with the genuineness of the will and the validity of its execution”]).

Here, Alexander deposed decedent’s former attorney. Katz had represented decedent for years and had prepared seven prior testamentary documents, including a 2002 will, on his behalf. As such, Katz was clearly a person whom one would expect to have knowledge that was relevant to whether this will, executed in 2003, was the product of undue influence. Alexander conducted the examination of Katz for the purpose of gathering information in order to make an informed decision as to how to proceed.

Both the purpose of testator’s in terrorem clause and the general public policy were satisfied here, since Alexander’s investigation led him to the conclusion that there was no basis upon which to file objections or contest the will. A broader construction of these clauses as manifesting testator’s intent to preclude the examination of this witness would essentially cut off all other persons from being asked for information, no matter the potential value or relevance of that information—even as to the medical or psychological condition of the testator at the time the will was executed. Interpreting these clauses narrowly will allow surrogates to address on a case-by-case basis whether the conduct undertaken is in keeping with the testator’s intent.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Graffeo, J. (concurring).

I write separately to explain my understanding of the rule being applied in this case. The common law recognized the validity of an in terrorem clause and the right of a testator to restrict beneficiaries from attempting to undermine the validity of a will. As our opinion notes, in terrorem clauses are not favored since they may result in a total forfeiture of a bequest and—because of this serious consequence—they must be strictly construed to conform to the testator’s expressed intent (see e.g. Matter of Fairbairn, 46 AD3d 973, 974 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]).

EPTL 3-3.5 and SCPA 1404 altered the common law. In enacting these statutes, the Legislature made a public policy decision that beneficiaries should be able to engage in certain inquiries pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the drafting of a will without risking forfeiture, even if the testator expressed an intent to make the will impervious to such future challenges (see e.g. Tur ano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 3-3.5, at 451-452). Thus, the Legislature decided that even the most carefully worded in terrorem clause cannot prevent a beneficiary from taking the deposition of “a proponent’s witnesses, the person who prepared the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding” (EPTL 3-3.5 [b] [3] [D]) as a preface to deciding whether to file objections or contest a will.

Because we are required to construe the in terrorem clauses at issue here narrowly, we found it reasonable to conclude that the language of this will did not specifically impose forfeiture once Alexander Singer deposed the attorney who drafted his father’s prior wills. Thus, the safe harbor provisions set forth in SCPA 1404 and EPTL 3-3.5 are inapplicable and the fact that the testator’s former attorney does not fall into one of the categories of persons listed in the statutes is irrelevant in this case.

I believe, however, that an in terrorem clause can be properly drafted to explicitly prohibit this type of inquiry. A testator could, for example, draft an in terrorem clause that incorporates the statutorily-authorized preliminary examinations by explicitly stating that a beneficiary who makes or attempts to make any inquiry about the will other than those permitted by EPTL 3-3.5 and SCPA 1404 shall forfeit his or her bequest and extinguish any interest that the beneficiary’s issue may have in the estate. If Joseph Singer’s will had an in terrorem clause of this nature, I would be inclined to hold that the examination of the attorney who drafted the prior wills resulted in the forfeiture of Alexander’s bequest.

With these thoughts, I join today’s decision.

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur with Chief Judge Lippman; Judge Graffeo concurs in a separate concurring opinion in which Judges Read and Smith concur.

Order reversed, etc.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Pigott, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    [923 NE2d 578, 896 NYS2d 295]
    Marc A. Ayers, Appellant, v James E. O’Brien et al., Respondents.
    Argued November 18, 2009;
    decided December 17, 2009

      ANNOTATION REFERENCE
    See ALR Index under Automobiles and Highway Traffic; Comparative Negligence; Police and Law Enforcement Officers; U-Turn.
    FIND SIMILAR CASES ON WESTLAW®
    Database: NY-ORCS
    Query: emergency /2 vehicle /s reckless /2 disregard /p comparative /2 fault
    POINTS OF COUNSEL

      Cellino & Barnes, EC., Buffalo (Denis J. Bastible and Christian R. Oliver of counsel), for appellant.
    Deputy Ayers is entitled to the protections afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. (Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494; Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505; Sierk v Frazon, 32 AD3d 1153; McGloin v Golbi, 49 AD3d 610; Dubois v Vanderwalker, 245 AD2d 758; Warner v Adelphi Univ., 240 AD2d 730; Mullen v Zoebe, Inc., 86 NY2d 135.)

      Mitchell Goris & Stokes, LLC, Cazenovia (Mark D. Goris of counsel), for respondents.
    Appellant is not entitled to the protections afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. (Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494; Sierk v Frazon, 32 AD3d 1153; McGloin v Golbi, 49 AD3d 610; Aldrich v Sampier, 2 AD3d 1101.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Pigott, J.

Operators of authorized emergency vehicles are protected from liability for conduct privileged under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, unless their conduct rises to the level of reckless disregard. In this personal injury action, we are asked whether an emergency vehicle operator may assert that same statute in an action in which he is the plaintiff, thereby preventing the defendant from raising a comparative fault defense. We hold that he may not.

On July 31, 2005, plaintiff Marc A. Ayers, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, was on patrol in the Town of Chenango. While Ayers was executing a U-turn to pursue a speeding vehicle, his car was struck by another vehicle, owned and operated by defendants.

Ayers commenced this action alleging serious injury as a result of defendants’ common-law negligence. In their answer, defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted four affirmative defenses, including that any damages “must be diminished in the proportion which [the] culpable conduct, including contributory negligence and assumption of the risk, attributable to [Ayers], bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.”

Following discovery, Ayers moved to dismiss defendants’ comparative fault defense, arguing that the liability standard for drivers of authorized emergency vehicles under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) is “reckless disregard,” and that he had not acted recklessly. Supreme Court granted the motion striking the defense (19 Misc 3d 449 [2008]).

The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the defense (60 AD3d 27 [2008]), holding that Ayers, as a plaintiff, is not entitled to the protections afforded under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e). The Appellate Division then certified to this Court the question whether it had erred as a matter of law. We conclude that the Appellate Division did not err, and we hold that the reckless disregard standard of liability does not apply in determining the culpable conduct of the operator of an emergency vehicle when he or she is the individual bringing the action.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, broadly describing the privileges afforded a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle when involved in an emergency situation, contains the following language:

“The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]).

Clearly, this section “precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the conduct rises to the level of recklessness,” as we held in Saarinen v Kerr (84 NY2d 494, 497 [1994]). In that case, we concluded that a reckless disregard standard was appropriate, in determining the liability of a defendant emergency vehicle driver, because of the plain language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e), and in light of the purpose of the statute, which is to give “operators of emergency vehicles the freedom to perform their duties unhampered by the normal rules of the road” (84 NY2d at 502). We noted that “the possibility of incurring civil liability for what amounts to a mere failure of judgment could deter emergency personnel from acting decisively and taking calculated risks in order to save life or property or to apprehend miscreants” (id.). The reckless disregard standard, which requires that a plaintiff show “more than a momentary judgment lapse” on the part of the defendant, allows emergency personnel to act swiftly and resolutely while at the same time protecting the public’s safety (id.).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) cannot be used as a sword to ward off a comparative fault defense. It is to be applied only when the emergency vehicle operator is sued or countersued. Plaintiffs proposed interpretation of the statute would shift the responsibility for any contributory negligence on the part of an emergency vehicle operator to the driver of another vehicle whom the emergency vehicle operator sues. This would result in significant unfairness in some cases. For instance, the operator of an emergency vehicle whose own negligence, while not rising to the level of reckless disregard, caused his or her injuries would be entitled to full damages even from a minimally negligent defendant. There is no evidence that such a financial windfall was intended or foreseen by the Legislature when it granted emergency vehicle operators greater freedom to disregard rules of the road while undertaking their responsibilities.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

      . Ayers does not assert any statute, ordinance or governmental regulation that defendants violated, and thus makes no claim under General Municipal Law § 205-e (see generally Aldrich v Sampler, 2 AD3d 1101, 1103 [3d Dept 2003]).

      . A police vehicle is an “authorized emergency vehicle” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101.


author: Smith, J. Ciparick, J. (dissenting).

text:
    [920 NE2d 919, 892 NYS2d 812]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nasin Arafet, Appellant.
    Argued September 17, 2009;
    decided October 22, 2009

      POINTS OF COUNSEL

      Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, and E. Stewart Jones Law Firm, Troy (E. Stewart Jones, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
    The challenged ruling impermissibly eroded the century-old Molineux evidentiary rule by (1) finding that the nature of the subject tractor-trailer theft, in and of itself, was enough to prove defendant’s identity and there was no need to show that the manner of execution was unique to admit proof of prior uncharged crimes, and (2) allowing vast evidence of other crimes by third parties with a fragile link to the crime charged. (People v Mateo, 93 NY2d 327; People v Robinson, 68 NY2d 541; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139; People v Sanza, 121 AD2d 89; People v Neu, 126 AD2d 223, 70 NY2d 652; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233; People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520; People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 7 NY3d 871; People v Gorghan, 13 AD3d 908, 4 NY3d 798.)

      Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Philp W. Mueller of counsel), for respondent.
    I. The trial judge did not err or abuse her discretion by permitting limited evidence of defendant’s prior theft of cargo trailers, where it was necessary in a circumstantial case to prove defendant’s identity as the perpetrator by showing that he possessed or had access to the specialized knowledge, skills, equipment, facilities and criminal contacts needed to complete and profit from this highly-specialized crime. (People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40; People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375; People v Moore, 42 NY2d 421; People v Fitzgerald, 156 NY 253; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; People v Bligen, 35 AD3d 171, 8 NY3d 803; People v Hills, 140 AD2d 71; People v Parker, 50 AD3d 330; People v Robinson, 93 NY2d 986.) II. Evidence that defendant made his first phone call, immediately after stealing the cargo trailer, to Jose Gotay’s trucking facility, where Gotay received stolen cargo, was properly admitted to show defendant’s access to and contact with a cargo “fence,” and was accompanied by effective limiting instructions. (People v Santana, 48 AD3d 286, 10 NY3d 844; People v Wright, 35 AD3d 172, 8 NY3d 928; People v Delacruz, 24 AD3d 109, 6 NY3d 775; People v Giles, 11 NY3d 495; People v Cintron, 95 NY2d 329.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Smith, J.

Defendant, convicted of stealing a trailer containing a million dollars worth of merchandise, claims that his rights under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) were violated when evidence of four other criminal incidents was admitted at his trial. As to three of the incidents, we hold that there was no error. The evidence relating to the fourth incident should not have been admitted, but the error was harmless.

I

The trailer that defendant was charged with stealing disappeared from a parking lot in Rotterdam, New York, near Exit 25A of the New York State Thruway, around 9:30 a.m. on July 26, 2003. The trailer, emptied of its contents and attached to a tractor, was found abandoned two days later on a highway in New Jersey, some 20 miles from where defendant lived. The evidence linking defendant to the crime, though entirely circumstantial, was compelling.

Records of calls made on defendant’s cellular telephone showed that he traveled northward from his New Jersey home early on the morning of July 26, arriving before the time of the theft in the general area where the theft occurred. They also showed that, beginning around the time of the theft, defendant traveled southward, back toward New Jersey. The fastest route from the parking lot of Exit 25A to the area of northern New Jersey where defendant lived and where the trailer was found leaves the Thruway at Exit 15, about 120 miles south of Exit 25A. Records of the New York Thruway Authority showed that a Class 5 vehicle—a tractor-trailer—entered through Exit 25A at 9:35 a.m. on the day of the theft, and left the Thruway at Exit 15 an hour and 38 minutes later. No other tractor-trailer that had entered at Exit 25A left the Thruway at Exit 15 between 10:15 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on that day. A toll ticket issued to the one tractor-trailer that did travel that route in the hours immediately after the theft bore defendant’s fingerprint.

In addition, the cell phone records identified the recipients of calls that defendant made while on his southward journey. Three of the calls were to a business at 530 Duncan Avenue in Jersey City operated by Jose Gotay, who rented several truck bays there. A fourth call was to Florida, to a cell phone belonging to Nelson Quintanilla. Quintanilla’s phone bills showed that, on July 27, the day after the theft, he began a journey northward from Florida, arriving in New Jersey on July 28, shortly before the abandoned tractor-trailer was found.

Of the four uncharged crimes at issue in this case, three involved the recipients of defendant’s phone calls. Two were offered by the People to prove that Gotay’s truck bays at 530 Duncan Avenue were used as part of a fencing operation. Thus, the People proved that cargo stolen from trailers had been received at Gotay’s facility in December 2000, and again in December 2003 (some five months after the crime with which defendant was charged); there was no evidence connecting defendant to either of these two incidents. The People also proved that, in 1996, Quintanilla had been defendant’s accomplice in the theft of another trailer. The fourth uncharged crime did not involve either Gotay or Quintanilla: The People proved that defendant had stolen a trailer in April 2000, working with accomplices not connected by any evidence to this case.

Evidence of all four incidents was admitted over defendant’s objection under Molineux. A jury convicted defendant of grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property, and the Appellate Division affirmed, with two Justices dissenting (54 AD3d 517 [2008]). An Appellate Division Justice granted leave to appeal, and we now affirm.

II

The rule of Molineux is familiar: Evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible where its only purpose is to show bad

character or propensity towards crime (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]). The rule, we have explained, “is based on policy and not on logic” (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979]). It may be logical to conclude from a defendant’s prior crimes that he is inclined to act criminally, but such evidence “is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters or to convict a defendant because of his past” (Alvino, 71 NY2d at 241). However, “[w]hen evidence of uncharged crimes is relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s criminal disposition, it is generally held to be admissible on the theory that the probative value will outweigh the potential prejudice to the accused” (Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 47). A commonly used, though nonexhaustive, list names five so-called Molineux exceptions—i.e., purposes for which uncharged crimes might be relevant: “to show (1) intent, (2) motive, (3) knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant” (Alvino, 71 NY2d at 242; see also e.g. People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; Molineux, 168 NY at 293). Still, even if technically relevant for one of these or some other legitimate purpose, Molineux evidence will not be admitted if it “is actually of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to the accused” (Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 47).

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that the evidence relating to Gotay’s fencing operation and to the crime committed in 1996 by defendant and Quintanilla was admissible. Evidence of the crime committed by defendant in April 2000 was not.

As to the evidence of Gotay’s fencing operation, the issue is easy: This was not Molineux evidence at all. The point of Molineux is to prevent a jury from convicting a defendant because of his criminal propensity. Evidence of two criminal transactions in which defendant was not involved could show nothing about his propensity. The evidence was relevant to the case: It showed that a business defendant called in the hours immediately after the theft was one where stolen goods could be disposed of, and it thus supported an inference that defendant at that moment needed a fence’s services.

The evidence of the 1996 crime, however, does present a Molineux issue, for that crime involved defendant as well as Quintanilla, and could have led a jury to infer that defendant had a propensity for crime. Still, it was not an abuse of discretion to admit the evidence (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]). The predicate for its admission was evidence showing that defendant called Quintanilla shortly after the theft; that Quintanilla traveled from Florida to New Jersey beginning the next day; and that Quintanilla arrived in northern New Jersey not long before the discovery of the stolen trailer, with a tractor attached, on a highway in the vicinity. Abandonment of the tractor-trailer (unless the thief walked away from it) was a task that required an accomplice with a second vehicle. The evidence supported an inference that Quintanilla provided defendant with the ride he needed.

We have held that evidence of “a distinctive repetitive pattern” of criminal conduct may be admitted under Molineux to show the defendant’s identity (Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 48). Repeated commission of similar crimes with the same accomplice is an example of such a pattern (People v Whitley, 14 AD3d 403, 405 [1st Dept 2005]; People v Palmer, 263 AD2d 361 [1st Dept 1999]). Because the evidence supported a finding that Quintanilla and defendant were working together to commit the crime in this case, Molineux did not require that the jury be kept ignorant of the fact that they had worked together on such a transaction before.

There was, however, no valid ground for admitting proof of the April 2000 incident. The People acknowledge, in substance, that the only relevance of that proof was to show that defendant was an experienced trailer thief. This is not, the People argue, pure propensity evidence because of the nature of the crime—a specialized one, that required unusual skills, knowledge and access to the means of committing it. But we see no justification, at least in a case like this, for creating a “specialized crime” exception to Molineux. No doubt this crime is beyond the skills of the average citizen; most people could not swiftly hook a trailer to a tractor and drive it away. But the crime could probably have been committed by any experienced tractor-trailer driver, and we cannot believe there was no less prejudicial way to prove that defendant had experience in that line of work. This was not a crime “so unique that the mere proof that the defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charged” (People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139, 144 [1970]). Admitting the evidence of the April 2000 incident violated the Molineux rule.

Ill

The outcome of this case thus turns on whether allowing the. jury to learn of defendant’s April 2000 crime was harmless error. We conclude that it was.

An error of law may be found harmless where “the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming” and where there is no “significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Here, though there was no eyewitness to the crime and defendant did not admit it, the proof can fairly be called overwhelming. The key piece of evidence, of course, is defendant’s fingerprint on the toll ticket.

Though the dissent suggests otherwise (dissenting op at 473), we find the proof that the fingerprint was indeed defendant’s to be extremely clear. A qualified expert testified without contradiction that he had found “at least fifteen obvious points of identification in common” between the fingerprint on the toll card and one known to come from defendant’s left index finger. It is of no significance that defendant shares one characteristic—a “loop” rather than a “whorl” or “arch” demarcation— with most of the population; the 15 points of identification prove the fingerprints match. Much of defense counsel’s cross-examination of the expert was devoted to demonstrating that fingerprint analysis is not absolutely infallible; i.e., that mistakes in fingerprint identification are not unknown to history. Nothing in the record gives any ground for serious doubt about the accuracy of this particular identification.

The fingerprint, combined with the time of the toll ticket’s issuance, shows that, within minutes of the time the stolen trailer disappeared, defendant drove a tractor-trailer onto the New York State Thruway at the exit where the theft occurred. Thruway Authority records showed that the tractor-trailer defendant was driving left the Thruway at Exit 15, the exit that led toward the northern New Jersey area where defendant lived and the trailer was later found. No other tractor-trailer traveled the same route at approximately the same time. Before and shortly after leaving the Thruway, defendant placed phone calls to a fencing operation in northern New Jersey and to a former accomplice in a trailer theft. Beginning the next day, the former accomplice traveled from Florida to northern New Jersey, arriving there shortly before the trailer and the tractor hooked to it were found abandoned on a highway.

All these facts were proved by near-irrefutable evidence and, taken together, they exclude to a virtual certainty any hypothesis of defendant’s innocence. The idea that he happened to be pulling a trailer other than the stolen one, at the same time and over the same route that the stolen trailer would logically have traveled, while the stolen trailer was for some reason elsewhere, borders on the fanciful. The idea that, at the time of this astonishing coincidence, defendant just happened to place phone calls to Gotay’s fencing operation (three times) and to his old accomplice Quintanilla is absurd.

Nor do we see any likelihood that the jury would have acquitted defendant if it had not heard the improperly admitted evidence. The jury properly had before it all the evidence we have just recited. Thus it would have known, without evidence of defendant’s April 2000 crime, not only all the facts pointing to his commission of the 2003 theft, but also that he stole a trailer (with Quintanilla) in 1996. As to both the 1996 and the April 2000 incidents, the jury was instructed that they were “no proof whatsoever that he possessed a propensity or disposition to commit the crimes charged in this indictment or any other crime. It is not offered for such a purpose and must not be considered by you for that purpose.” Of course, there can be no absolute certainty that the jury followed this instruction—but if it did not, the prejudicial effect of the evidence that was admitted in error could not have added much to the effect of the evidence properly admitted. There is no significant probability that the result in this case would have been different if the trial court had, as it should, excluded the evidence of defendant’s April 2000 theft.

Accordingly, the order' of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Ciparick, J. (dissenting).

Because the majority resorts to an improper application of the harmless error doctrine where County Court committed a flagrant Molineux violation in allowing highly prejudicial evidence as to defendant’s prior federal felony conviction and a multitude of other collateral evidence concerning prior criminality, I respectfully dissent. The glaring error of permitting an FBI special agent to testify at length as to defendant’s prior cargo theft in April 2000—a crime of the very same nature as the charges in this case—most certainly impacted the jury to defendant’s detriment. In addition, as this prosecution rested entirely on circumstantial evidence of less than compelling force, invocation of harmless error is not appropriate to avoid the conclusion that defendant was deprived of a fair trial.

Furthermore, County Court’s admission of several hundred pages of testimony on numerous other collateral matters is most troubling. In addition to the Molineux error in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior conviction for cargo theft, the court allowed evidence as to the underlying facts of defendant’s alleged involvement in an uncharged cargo theft with an accomplice, one Nelson Quintanilla, in 1996, in yet another tractor-trailer heist. These errors were then further compounded by the admission of testimony from police officers as to the felony conviction of one Jose Gotay—a person not charged in this case—for receiving stolen cargo in December 2000 and his involvement in another such offense in December 2003. All of these collateral matters involved similar types of offenses as those with which defendant here was charged.

According to the majority, there was a nexus bonding the events in this case with Gotay’s criminal past based upon phone records showing that calls from one of defendant’s cell phones were made at about the time of the crime to a company where Gotay was listed as a contact person, which “supported an inference that defendant at that moment needed a fence’s services” (see majority op at 465) sufficient to inject evidence of this third party’s crimes into defendant’s trial. As to the evidence involving Quintanilla, the majority states that “the evidence supported a finding that Quintanilla and the defendant were working together to commit the crime in this case” (see majority op at 466) when he allegedly abandoned the trailer in northern New Jersey. The majority concludes that the admission of these bad acts by other persons, where it is alleged that defendant was merely in contact with them at or about the time of the commission of the crime, was not unduly prejudicial to defendant. I disagree.

The prejudicial effect that all of this extensive collateral evidence had is clear: the jury was naturally led to believe that, because defendant had committed two cargo thefts in the past and at the time of this alleged crime telephoned a federally convicted “fence” of stolen goods, he was guilty of the crimes charged here. It is remarkable that one fifth of this trial record—spanning several hundred pages of trial testimony from numerous state and federal law enforcement officers and dozens of exhibits—is consumed by collateral matters, including multiple photographs depicting warehouses, stolen trucks and stolen goods related to extraneous crimes. In total, two FBI agents and three police officers testified as to uncharged matters and convictions involving cargo thefts and stolen goods. Much of the prosecution’s summation was then centered upon these matters.

Our long history of more than a century of Molineux jurisprudence guards against the admissibility of a defendant’s prior crimes, except in very limited circumstances, because of the real danger that such evidence would sway the jury to convict the defendant based upon prior bad acts and thus deprive the accused of the fundamental right to a fair trial (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 313 [1901]). To introduce Molineux evidence, the prosecution must meet its burden of establishing that the probative value of the proffered material outweighs its prejudicial effect (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242 [1987]).

“Prejudice involves both the nature of the crime, for the more heinous the uncharged crime, the more likely that jurors will be swayed by it, and the difficulty faced by the defendant in seeking to rebut the inference which the uncharged crime [or prior charged crimes] evidence brings into play” (People v Robinson, 68 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]).

The reason for this is obvious: “ ‘it is much easier to believe in the guilt of an accused person when it is known or suspected that he [or she] has previously committed a similar crime’ ” (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 48 [1979], quoting People v Molineux, 168 NY at 313). Hence, the admission of such collateral evidence must be subjected to “the most rigid scrutiny” (Molineux, 168 NY at 313).

I agree with the majority’s holding that County Court erred in allowing evidence of defendant’s prior federal conviction, but this error cannot be characterized as harmless. As the majority notes, the requirements for the Molineux identity exception were not established as to this past crime. Defendant’s prior conviction for a cargo theft was not so unique or peculiar that it involved a signature offense. As a prosecution witness explained at the trial, the theft of a tractor-trailer is a relatively common type of crime in this general region. Further, no witness at this trial could testify as to how defendant may have stolen this vehicle, much less that he did so in a peculiar and distinctive manner, thereby identifying himself as the culprit. Nor was the collateral evidence probative of a common scheme or plan because that crime and the charges here do not strike “ ‘such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations’ ” (People v Fiore, 34 NY2d 81, 85 [1974], quoting 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 304, at 202 [3d ed]). Moreover, even had the identity or common scheme or plan exceptions been established—which they were not—the probative value of this collateral evidence would have been outweighed by its potential for prejudice.

As to the evidence of defendant’s uncharged cargo theft with Quintanilla, the majority concludes that this is classic Molineux identity evidence. They point out that previously defendant was accused of acting with several individuals in a cargo theft, one of whom he allegedly telephoned at the time of this crime. This mere alleged similarity, however, is not enough to meet the strictures of our Molineux jurisprudence.

To establish the identity exception, Molineux demands that there be evidence of a distinctive crime forming a uniqueness that necessarily identifies the defendant as its culprit, as would a signature. “A similar modus operandi is not enough; there must be sufficient uniqueness to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-514 [Farrell 11th ed], citing People v Robinson, 68 NY2d at 548-549; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 251-252 [1982]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 47-48). As Molineux long ago stated, “ ‘the naked similarity of . . . crimes proves nothing’ ” (Robinson, 68 NY2d at 549, quoting Molineux, 168 NY at 316).

Here, this uncharged cargo theft displays neither any sort of distinctive manner that conclusively identifies defendant in the allegations in this case, nor a pattern of criminal behavior. Rather, this evidence accomplishes nothing more than telling the jury of defendant’s propensity to commit this type of offense based upon his alleged earlier engagement in a similar type of crime along with a person he may have telephoned at the time of this crime. Unknown are the contents of the telephone calls made from defendant’s cell phone to Quintanilla or evidence sufficient to substantiate the pure supposition that he was involved in the planning and execution of this crime. Thus, the purported linkage to Quintanilla, upon which extensive collateral evidence was based, is speculative and tenuous. Meanwhile, the potential for prejudice injected into the trial by such extensive collateral evidence is clear. As the prosecution argued to the jury in summation:

“Maybe they are friends. It’s good to be friends with your colleagues. That doesn’t mean that at times they’re not involved in some wrongdoing, and this—on this particular date, the calls surrounding this July 26, 2003, incident, I submit to you the evidence is they’re up to no good, they’re scheming about stealing this trailer, and that’s what happened . . .
“This is some planning to steal the trailer here and then sell the contents and make some money from it.”

It is settled law that when evidence is of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to the accused that it must be excluded (see People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 47).

County Court then added to this prejudicial effect by allowing evidence of Gotay’s conviction and criminal involvement related to the receiving of stolen goods. The court concluded that Gotay, who remains uncharged in this case, was going to act as a “fence” for these goods merely because defendant had telephoned him at the time of the crime, and that this bare fact was sufficient to put such explosive evidence before the jury. Again, there was no evidence of what the defendant and Gotay may have said in these phone conversations. In considering the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes of third parties as part of the prosecution’s case, though not strictly subject to Molineux, the court must be mindful of similar dangers, such as instances where prejudice outweighs probativeness and the danger of the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime and his guilt thereof merely by association with individuals with criminal pasts.

We have not hesitated to reverse convictions affected by admission of evidence of uncharged crimes, where the prejudice to defendant was much less acute than in this case (see People v Resek, 3 NY3d 385, 387 [2004] [evidence that police were monitoring a car based upon a report that it was stolen could have been dealt with by less prejudicial means, such as instructing jurors that the defendant’s stop of the vehicle and arrest were lawful]; People v Green, 35 NY2d 437, 442-443 [1974] [the trial court erred by allowing police testimony that one month earlier they had attempted to enter defendant’s apartment because of a drug complaint and the error was prejudicial]). In the recent case of People v Giles (11 NY3d 495, 500 [2008]), we held that evidence of prior crimes to show that a debit card was stolen was irrelevant, where there was no proof that defendant committed the prior burglaries, and the resulting prejudice required reversal of defendant’s conviction in the absence of a limiting instruction by the trial court.

The majority ascribes no prejudicial effect from multiple law enforcement agents testifying as to these third parties’ cargo thefts on the basis that this extensive testimony does not directly relate to defendant’s criminal past. They state with confidence that the jury did not impute criminal propensity to defendant from Gotay’s conviction and criminal involvement. The jury, however, would naturally have believed that, because defendant associated with a person convicted of receiving stolen goods in the recent past and was in direct communication with him at the time of this cargo theft, defendant committed the crimes charged.

Turning to harmless error, this doctrine is applicable only if two discrete factors are clear: (1) the quantum and nature of the evidence against the defendant must be great enough to excise the error, and (2) the causal effect that the error may nevertheless have had on the jury must be overcome (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240 [1975]). Put differently, it must be established that the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, such that it is likely that the trial error did not infect the jury’s finding (see id. at 240-242).

Here, the majority contends that the noncollateral evidence against defendant was so compelling and overwhelming that it “exclude[s] to a virtual certainty any hypothesis of defendant’s innocence” (see majority op at 468). The noncollateral evidence, however, was neither overwhelming nor particularly compelling. The prosecution’s fingerprint evidence taken from a New York State Thruway toll ticket consisted of a partial, smudged left index fingerprint (allegedly from defendant) sharing a loop that is common to 70% of the population. The prosecution urged that this toll ticket handed to a toll booth collector on the route that the driver may have taken was from the only five-axle truck driving that portion of the highway at around the time of the crime. The second piece of evidence was cell-site information showing that calls were made from one of defendant’s cell phones that ostensibly track the same route. There was no testimony from eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, inculpatory statements by defendant, or any contraband (cash or merchandise) recovered from defendant or anyone else. This evidence was certainly not overwhelming in establishing defendant’s guilt.

The prejudice to defendant, however, in allowing an FBI agent to testify as to his prior federal felony conviction, along with the underlying facts of that crime, and the admission of another federal agent’s testimony regarding the facts from a previous tractor-trailer offense, is significant. Allowing the evidence that defendant contacted a federally convicted “fence” compounded the prejudicial effect of these errors. Finally, the fact that at least one fifth of this trial was dedicated to collateral matters casts serious doubts on whether defendant received a fair trial.

Nor were the errors in admitting extensive testimony of extraneous criminal acts cured by the limiting instructions. County Court’s jury instruction first contains a summary of the collateral evidence against defendant, merely highlighting this wrongful evidence to the jury, and then the court told the jury that it must not view these crimes for propensity but for a common scheme or plan and as identity evidence. While the instruction may have served to highlight the wrongly admitted evidence, it certainly failed to cure the prejudice to defendant.

In conclusion, the admission of evidence regarding defendant’s prior bad acts and the bad acts of third parties was highly prejudicial and served to deprive defendant of a fair trial. Where the evidence is far from overwhelming, it cannot be said that the result would have been the same if it were possible to extricate such egregious errors.

Accordingly, I would reverse defendant’s judgment of conviction and direct a new trial.

Judges Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur with Judge Smith; Judge Ciparick dissents and votes to reverse in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Jones concur.

Order affirmed.

       There was also testimony from a tollbooth operator that he remembered seeing, and noticing some unusual features of, a tractor-trailer that entered at Exit 25A that morning. Since this testimony was not precise as to time, did not conclusively identify the tractor-trailer, and did not identify defendant, it adds little to our analysis of the facts.

       It is true, as the majority holds, that there is no unique or specialized crime exception under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) providing for the admission of evidence of a prior complex crime to prove the identity of a defendant for the crime charged. If that were so, a jury would naturally infer that the defendant was guilty of the instant crime based solely upon propensity, and the ensuing prejudice would be almost insurmountable.