You are here: / Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless F...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless Facility Was Foreseeable

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether an attack by one resident upon another resident of a facility for disabled homeless people was foreseeable:

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants, the owner and operator of a transitional facility for disabled homeless people, breached their common-law duty to provide reasonable security measures to protect plaintiff’s decedent from foreseeable harm … . The fatal attack on decedent by a fellow resident was immediately preceded by two prior physical attacks, by the same resident, and police officers responding to the earlier attacks had told defendants’ staff members to keep the two residents apart.

In light of the conflicting testimony as to the perpetrator’s demeanor prior to the final attack and whether defendants were on notice of his alleged threat to continue the attack on decedent, it is for a jury to determine whether a further attack was foreseeable. The fact that defendants may not have been able to “anticipate the precise manner of the [attack] or the exact extent of injuries. . .does not preclude liability as a matter of law where the general risk and character of injuries are foreseeable” … . Furthermore, while unforeseeable and intentional criminal acts by third parties are supervening acts which sever the causal connection with any alleged negligence … , here, “the alleged intervening criminal act is itself the foreseeable harm that shapes the duty [of care sought to be] imposed” … . Corporan v Barrier Free Living Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08351, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)

In a detailed and fact-specified full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in an action under the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), the First Department, determined plaintiff, a judgment creditor with an unpaid judgment against a partnership, could not reach a $425,000 payment made by the partnership to a limited partner. The court held the payment was not fraudulent, constituted a partnership distribution, and was subject to the three-year statute of limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA), not the six-year statute of limitations in the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL). Therefore, plaintiff’s action seeking the recover the payment was time-barred;

RLPA (Partnership Law) § 121-607 prohibits limited partnerships from making distributions “to a partner to the extent that, at the time of the distribution, after giving effect to the distribution, all liabilities of the limited partnership. . . exceed the fair market value of the assets of the limited partnership” (Partnership Law § 121-607[a]) … . A limited partner who knowingly receives a prohibited distribution is liable to the partnership in the amount of the distribution (§ 121-607[b]). However, “a limited partner who receives a wrongful distribution . . . shall have no liability under this article or other applicable law for the amount of the distribution after the expiration of three years from the date of the distribution” (§ 121-607[c]). … [T]he Limited Liability Company Law (LLCL) contains a similar limitation on distributions to members (LLCL §§ 102[i], 508[a]). Peckar & Abramson, P.C. v Lyford Holdings, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 08363, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker

The First Department noted the People were not required to disclose, prior to trial, a confession defendant made to a health care worker (because the health care worker was not connected to law enforcement):

… [M]idway through their case, the People introduced a previously undisclosed confession that defendant made to a health care worker at a hospital where he was being treated for a suicide attempt. This statement tended to corroborate a similar confession that defendant made to a detective shortly thereafter. It is undisputed that the People had no statutory duty to disclose this statement, because it was not made to anyone connected with law enforcement (see CPL 240.20[1][a]), and because no Rosario material was involved. Defendant nevertheless complains that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the timing of the disclosure, because he would have formulated a different defense had he known the People intended to introduce a confession to a civilian witness. However, we find no evidence of deceit or trickery on the part of the People, and defendant’s claim of prejudice is unpersuasive. … [T]here was no misrepresentation that the undisclosed evidence did not exist, and the trial had not progressed to the point where defendant could not have adjusted his defense, or requested less drastic relief than a mistrial.

Defense counsel did not object to the health care worker’s testimony on the ground of physician-patient privilege, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. People v Tayo, 2015 NY Slip Op 08353, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ , ,

Question of Fact Whether Real Estate Broker “Launched an Instrument of Harm” In an Apartment Being Shown to Plaintiff; Evidence of Custom Not Enough to Shift the Burden of Proof in Premises Liability Action

The First Department determined defendant real estate broker’s (Prudential/Leonhardt’s) motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case should not have been granted. As an apartment was being shown by the real estate broker, plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot became tangled in a drapery cord which was on the floor. The broker (Leonhardt) submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment stating that she did not remember whether she opened the drapes on the day in question, and further stating that her habit was to hang the cord up when she did open the drapes. The court held the broker’s evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the broker did not “launch an instrument of harm,” i.e., cause the cord to be on the floor. Therefore, the contract between the broker and the owner of the apartment could have given rise to a duty of care owed by the broker to the plaintiff:

We thus turn to the … potential predicate for finding third-party tort liability, which rests on whether Prudential or Leonhardt launched an instrument of harm. Since they were the movants for summary judgment, Prudential and Leonhardt had the prima facie burden of demonstrating that there were no triable issues of fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue … . Leonhardt’s deposition testimony, and her affidavit in support of the motion, established that it was possible that she opened the drapes before the accident occurred, although she was not able to state with a reasonable degree of certainty that she did. If indeed she had opened the drapes, Leonhardt surmised, she would have wrapped the cord around the hook, because that is what she always did. However, evidence of a particular custom is insufficient to shift the burden in a premises liability case, because the defendant is required to proffer “specific evidence as to [her] activities on the day of the accident” … . Here, since Leonhardt had no specific recollection concerning the opening of the drapes on the day of the accident, she and Prudential were unable to eliminate the possibility that they were responsible for the hazardous placement of the cord on the floor. Accordingly, they failed to meet their prima facie burden, and the court should have denied their motion for summary judgment. Stimmel v Osherow, 2015 NY Slip Op 08340, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed a Verified Claim to Be a Summons and Complaint Under the Authority of CPLR 2001 (Allowing Correction of Mistakes in the Method of Filing)

Reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined that a verified claim filed by the plaintiff should not have been deemed a summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 2001 (which allows correction or clarification of a mistake in the method of filing):

Plaintiff filed a verified claim in this action and, before answering, defendant filed a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiff had “yet to file a Summons or a Complaint” and that “a complete failure to file is a jurisdictional defect.” Relying upon CPLR 2001, Supreme Court deemed the claim to be a complaint and excused the failure to file a summons as “an irregularity that shall be disregarded in this case.” That was error. We agree with defendant that CPLR 2001 does not permit a court to disregard the complete failure to file a summons, i.e., an initial paper necessary to commence an action … . As recognized by the Court of Appeals in quoting from the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in support of the bill that amended CPLR 2001, the statute may be invoked as a basis to correct or clarify ” a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED’ “… . Fox v City of Utica, 2015 NY Slip Op 08267, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/ ,

Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the drug possession and drug paraphernalia counts. Defendant was convicted based upon a “constructive possession” theory (i.e., possession of contraband based upon defendant’s dominion and control over the premises where the contraband is found). As police officers were conducting a search, and as defendant was handcuffed and lying on the floor, an officer asked defendant where he resided. Defendant answered “here.” The People relied heavily on defendant’s answer to prove constructive possession of contraband found on the premises. Under these circumstances, the pedigree question (where do you reside) was designed to elicit an incriminating response and, because the statement was “unwarned,” the answer should have been suppressed:

Generally, a defendant’s answer concerning his address, when “elicited through routine administrative questioning that [is] not designed to elicit an incriminating response” … , will be considered pedigree information not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements even if the statement later proves to be inculpatory … . That is “[b]ecause responses to routine booking questions—pedigree questions . . . —are not suppressible even when obtained in violation of Miranda [and, therefore, a] defendant lacks a constitutional basis upon which to challenge the voluntariness of his [or her] statement” … . “[W]here there is no question of voluntariness, the People are not required to serve defendant with notice” … .

As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, “the People may not rely on the pedigree exception if the questions, though facially appropriate, are likely to elicit incriminating admissions because of the circumstances of the particular case” (id.). Although the question concerning defendant’s address appears to have been a facially appropriate question, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case and, more specifically, under the circumstances in which the question was asked, the question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crimes charged” under Penal Law §§ 220.16 and 220.50 (2) … . We agree with defendant that the error in admitting that statement cannot be considered harmless insofar as it relates to the possessory counts of the indictment inasmuch as the People relied heavily on that statement to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia … . People v Slade, 2015 NY Slip Op 08252, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/ ,

Possession of Modest Amount of Drugs Is Not Sufficient to Make Out a Prima Facie Case of an Intent to Sell

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s possession of less than an ounce of drugs was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of defendant’s intent to sell:

We reject the People’s contention that the evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie case that defendant possessed the cocaine with the intent to sell it. Although “defendant’s possession of a substantial’ quantity of drugs can be cited as circumstantial proof of an intent to sell . . . , it cannot be said as a matter of law that the quantity of uncut and unpackaged drugs possessed in this case permitted an inference that defendant intended to sell them. More than mere possession of a modest quantity of drugs, not packaged for sale and unaccompanied by any other saleslike conduct, must be present for such an inference to arise” … .Consequently, the court properly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant possessed a controlled substance with intent to sell it … . People v Nellons, 2015 NY Slip Op 08305, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/

Probationers Do Not Lose All Privacy and Fourth Amendment Rights; Condition that Probationer Waive His Fourth Amendment Rights and Consent to the Search of His Home Struck

The Fourth Department determined the condition of probation requiring the probationer to consent to the search of his home, which was not part of the plea agreement, was not enforceable. A probationer does not lose all Fourth Amendment protections:

We agree with defendant … that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the condition of probation that required him to sign a consent to waive his Fourth Amendment rights against a search of his home on the ground that it is related to defendant’s “drug/alcohol abuse,” inasmuch as that condition was not part of the plea agreement … . We also agree with defendant that the condition does not relate to “the probationary goal of rehabilitation” and thus is not enforceable on that ground … . Indeed, the presentence report indicated that the 51-year-old defendant, a first-time offender, does not have a history of drug or alcohol abuse and that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. It is well established that “a probationer’s home is protected by the constitutional requirement that searches be reasonable . . . [A] probationer loses some privacy expectations and some part of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, but not all of both” … . We therefore modify the judgment by striking as a condition of probation the requirement that defendant consent to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights against a search of his home. People v Mead, 2015 NY Slip Op 08304, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/

State’s Violation of Inmate Disciplinary-Hearing Due Process Rules Did Not Entitle Inmate to Summary Judgment In His Unlawful Confinement Action

The Fourth Department determined the 3rd Department’s finding that the state violated inmate disciplinary-hearing (due process) rules did not entitle the inmate to summary judgment in his unlawful confinement action. The 3rd Department annulled the inmate’s disciplinary determination based upon the state’s (due process) rule violations. The inmate then sued the state for unlawful confinement (apparently based upon the discipline imposed by the annulled determination). The Fourth Department found that the state’s rule violation merely removed the state’s absolute immunity, allowing the unlawful confinement action to go forward. However, the inmate must prove all the elements of unlawful confinement to prevail. A question of fact remained on the “privilege” element:

It is well settled that, where, as here, the actions of correction personnel have violated the due process safeguards contained in 7 NYCRR parts 252 through 254, those actions “[will] not receive immunity” … . Contrary to claimant’s contention, however, the absence of an immunity defense does not entitle claimant to partial summary judgment on liability on his unlawful confinement cause of action. As defendant correctly contends, the “removal of immunity . . . does not result in absolute liability to defendant because claimant is still required to prove the merits of his claim” … . “Where, as here, a prison inmate contends that he was wrongfully confined as a result of the flawed prison disciplinary proceeding, once the absolute immunity is removed by showing that the governing rules and regulations were not followed, he [or she] may recover damages if he [or she] is able to prove the traditional elements of the tort of [unlawful confinement]: (1) that the confinement was intentional; (2) that Claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) that Claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) that the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . “In other words, not every violation of the rules and regulations governing the imposition of prison discipline will result in liability on the part of the State; the rule violations merely remove the cloak of absolute immunity and make the State potentially liable, if liability would be imposed under common law tort principles” … .

Here, there is no dispute concerning the first three elements of the unlawful confinement cause of action, and the dispositive issue is whether claimant established as a matter of law that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. He did not. Moustakos v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08318, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/ , ,

Questioning by Police and Caseworker Violated Defendant’s Right to Counsel, Failure to Suppress Statements Was Not Harmless Error

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction (for murder of mother, stepfather and stepbrother) because defendant’s “yeah probably” response to the question whether he wanted a lawyer was deemed an unequivocal request for a lawyer. A public defender, who represented defendant in a prior case, had sent a letter to the district attorney indicating he was aware of the murders and that he didn’t want defendant questioned in his absence. The police who questioned defendant did not tell defendant about the letter. The court determined that the letter did not cause the right to counsel to attach because it did not state the public defender was representing defendant on the murders. However, given the interrogating officers’ knowledge of the letter, they should have asked defendant directly whether he wanted the public defender’s representation. In addition, a child protective caseworker’s (MacNeil’s) subsequent questioning of the defendant violated his right to counsel because the caseworker was deemed an agent of the police:

… [T]he People contend that defendant’s statement — namely, “Yeah, probably” — did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. We disagree. The word “probably” is defined as “very likely” or “almost certainly” (Merriam—Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.MerriamWebster.com/dictionary/probably). It is difficult to conceive of circumstances where “probably” would mean “no,” particularly here, where the police knew that defendant was currently represented, albeit on unrelated charges, and also knew that counsel was so clearly attempting to protect his current client’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s demeanor and tone when saying “Yeah, probably” was his simple expression, in everyday language, that he was not competent or capable to deal with the officers’ questioning. Thus, based on the particular circumstances herein, a reasonable police officer would have understood that defendant’s statement was a request for counsel, requiring questioning without representation to cease .. . * * *

As it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of defendant’s statements at trial affected the jury’s verdict, County Court committed reversible error in failing to suppress defendant’s statements to the officers… . * * *

MacNeil acknowledged that she works closely with the police in these types of investigations and that, to the best of her recollection, Hamilton [a police officer who had questioned defendant] was present in the room as she was speaking with defendant. Based on the foregoing, we find that MacNeil was acting as an agent of law enforcement and, therefore, her questioning also infringed upon defendant’s right to counsel. Thus, as the product of interrogation by a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity, defendant’s statements to MacNeil were involuntary and should have been suppressed … . People v Slocum, 2015 NY Slip Op 08203, 3rd Dept 11-12-15

 

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