The First Department noted that wooden planks with gaps between them high above the bottom of a shaft constituted and elevation-related hazard to which Labor Law 240 (1) applied “regardless of whether the flooring was permanent.” Kircher v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07951, 1st Dept 11-18-14
The First Department reversed Supreme Court finding the fact that plaintiff was double-parked furnished the condition for the event but was not one of the causes of the accident. The defendant driver had pulled around in front of plaintiff’s vehicle and then backed into it:
The fact that a vehicle is double parked “does not automatically establish that such double parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the location of her vehicle merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes … .
The record demonstrates that plaintiff’s vehicle was double parked on a one way street. Defendants’ vehicle, moving in the same direction, successfully passed plaintiff’s vehicle on the left and pulled approximately three to four car lengths in front of it before stopping. One to two seconds later, defendants’ vehicle drove in reverse in an erratic manner and struck the front of plaintiff’s car, which was stationary at all times. Cervera v Moran, 2014 NY Slip Op 07945, 1st Dept 11-18-14
In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the landlord in an action alleging a tenant’s noise constituted a nuisance (because the papers submitted were inadequate), the First Department noted that a cause of action for nuisance does not lie against a landlord who did not create the nuisance and who has surrendered control of the premises to a tenant. Clarke v 6485 & 6495 Broadway Apt Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07961, 1st Dept 11-18-14
The Fourth Department dismissed a petition brought against a judge by a district attorney seeking the vacation of a plea on the ground that the district attorney did not agree to it. The district attorney argued he had agreed to a six-year sentence, not the five-year sentence imposed by the judge:
The extraordinary remedy of mandamus ” is never granted for the purpose of compelling the performance of an unlawful act’ ” …, and the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that, after the entry of judgment and the commencement of sentence, courts have no statutory or inherent authority to vacate, over a defendant’s objection, a plea taken in contravention of CPL 220.10 or related statutory provisions … . Indeed, absent extrinsic fraud, “[i]n no instance ha[s the Court of Appeals] recognized a court’s inherent [or statutory] power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment” … . Thus, mandamus does not lie here because we cannot compel respondent to exceed his statutory and inherent authority by directing him to vacate a plea taken in violation of CPL 220.10 (4) (a) after the commencement of sentence.
Furthermore, “restor[ing] the matter to its pre-plea status,” as petitioner seeks, would violate defendant’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention, CPL 40.30 (3) “does not aid the analysis of the double jeopardy issue” … . The Court of Appeals has held that a plea taken without the People’s consent is not a nullity for purposes of that provision … .
Apart from the legal infirmities of petitioner’s position, we further conclude that the record does not factually support that position. Specifically, the record belies petitioner’s contention that his consent to defendant’s plea was conditioned on the imposition of a determinate, six-year term of imprisonment. Matter of Budelmann v Leone, 2014 NY Slip Op 07797, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s employer, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO), was not required to accommodate the petitioner, who has epilepsy, with permanent light duty employment:
“Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (3) (b), employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, provided that the accommodations do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable accommodation is defined in relevant part as an action that permits an employee with a disability to perform his or her job activities in a reasonable manner” (… see § 292 [21-e]). “In reviewing the determAdd Newination of SDHR’s Commissioner, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner . . . , and we must confirm the determination so long as it is based on substantial evidence’ ” … .
Petitioner, a deputy sheriff assigned to the position of “inmate escort” at ECSO’s correctional facility, does not dispute that her epilepsy does not permit her to be assigned to duties involving direct inmate contact, i.e., duties that require uninterrupted vigilance and emergency response capability … . Thus, petitioner also does not dispute that she cannot perform the essential functions of an “inmate escort” without presenting a direct threat to her own safety and others in the workplace (see 42 USC § 12113 [b]…). In order to accommodate her disability, however, petitioner ultimately requested assignment to a light-duty position. It is well settled that an employer is neither required to create a new light-duty position to accommodate a disability (see 9 NYCRR 466.11 [f] [6]…), nor to assign an employee with more than a temporary disability to a position in a light-duty program designed to accommodate only temporary disabilities … . The fact that an employer has been lax in enforcing the temporary nature of its light-duty policy does not convert the policy into a permanent one … . Although ECSO maintained a “light-duty” program (Policy # 03-01-07, Light Duty Assignments), the purpose of that program is to assist employees with temporary disabilities by modifying work assignments and duties or arranging for a temporary transfer to a “Transitional Duty Assignment (TDA)” until the employee is medically released to resume regular duties. The express intent of ECSO’s “policy is not to create a permanent Transitional Duty Assignment, nor is [the policy] to be used in cases where an employee cannot perform the essential functions of a job with reasonable accommodation.” Petitioner’s epilepsy seizure disorder was described by her own treating physician as “long-term.” Thus, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb SDHR’s (State Division of Human Rights’) determination that petitioner’s disability was of a permanent nature and that ECSO had no permanent light-duty police assignments available. Matter of Coles v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07788, 4th Dept 11-14-14
Similar issue and result in Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07829, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Fourth Department determined that the striking down (by the Court of Appeals) of a 2005 retroactive zoning ordinance which prohibited the continued use of petitioner’s property as a landfill did not require the striking down of a 2007 health and safety regulation which had the same effect. Because the two regulations are different in nature, the collateral estoppel doctrine is not available:
…[W]e agree with defendants that collateral estoppel does not apply here. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party’ ” … . The doctrine “applies only if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . Here, the issue in this casethe legality of the 2007 Law as applied to plaintiffswas neither raised by the parties nor decided by the Court of Appeals in Jones I. The issue before the Court of Appeals in Jones I was whether the 2005 Law was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs, i.e., whether the 2005 Law extinguished plaintiffs’ legal use of their land for the purpose of operating a C & D landfill on the entire parcel (see Jones I, 15 NY3d at 145-146). The Court of Appeals held that “the zoning ordinance at issue in this case [i.e., the 2005 Law], which restricted the development of landfills, does not apply to plaintiffs because they acquired a vested right to use their 50-acre parcel as a landfill for construction and demolition debris before the enactment of the zoning law” (id. at 142 [emphasis added]).
Although the 2005 Law and the 2007 Law both regulate landfill operations, they are not identical. The 2005 Law amended the Zoning Law to eliminate sanitary and demolition landfills as a permitted use in the AR-1 zoning district. The 2007 Law did not amend the Zoning Law to eliminate landfills in a particular zoning district but, rather, it enacted a Town-wide ban on solid waste management facilities. In concluding that the 2005 Law did not apply to plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals relied upon its [prior] decisions… . Those cases involve the nonconforming use doctrine, which shields vested property rights from the retroactive effect of zoning ordinances… .
The 2007 Law, however, is a health and safety regulation, not a retroactive zoning ordinance … . Unlike the 2005 Law, the 2007 Law does not “regulate[] the location of certain facilities within particular zoning districts” but, rather, it “generally regulat[es] the operation of [solid waste management] facilities in the interest of public safety and welfare” … . It is well established that “a municipality has the authority, pursuant to its police powers, to impose conditions of operation . . . upon preexisting nonconforming uses to protect public safety and welfare” (id.) and “may even eliminate [a] nonconforming use provided that termination is accomplished in a reasonable fashion” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2014 NY Slip Op 07780, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Fourth Department determined the physician-patient privilege did not protect statements made by the defendant to the doctor while a police investigator was in the room:
We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing a medical professional to testify to statements defendant made to her while being examined at the hospital after his arrest. Defendant contends that his statements were subject to the physician-patient privilege despite the presence of a police investigator in the examination room because he was in custody and was not able to tell the investigator to leave the room. The physician-patient privilege, which is “entirely a creature of statute” .., is set forth in CPLR 4504 (a), and is applicable to criminal proceedings by virtue of CPL 60.10 … . In determining whether the physician-patient privilege applies, we must consider “whether in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, and particularly the occasion for the presence of the third person, the communication was intended to be confidential” … . Here, we conclude that defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the privilege applied … , because there was no showing that he intended that his statements be confidential. Defendant was aware of the investigator’s presence, but he did not ask to speak with the medical professional privately. Additionally, defendant made numerous statements to others that were similar to the statements he made to the medical professional, both before and after making them to her. People v Hartle, 2014 NY Slip Op 07812, 4th Dept 11-14-14
In a wrongful death action, the Fourth Department determined that a report generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) concerning an investigation into decedent’s death was not discoverable pursant to the Public Health Law and a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been granted in its entirety. The report was inadvertently disclosed by the plaintiff to all the defendants. Supreme Court ruled only that the report could not be further disseminated. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s order was appealable pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(20(v) even though the denial of the motion for a protective order was without prejudice to renew:
…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion only in part, and should have granted the motion in its entirety. “Pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (a) (v), the files of OPMC concerning possible instances of professional misconduct are confidential, subject to [certain] exceptions,” including Public Health Law § 230 (9), which are not applicable here … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that the OPMC proceeded past the interview phase of [the doctor’s] alleged misconduct with respect to decedent, the OPMC report is not discoverable as a matter of law (see § 230 [10] [a] [v]). Thus, we conclude that the court erred in failing to restore this matter to the “status quo prior to the[inadvertent] disclosure”… . Kirby v Kenmore Mercy Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07804, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge, sua sponte, struck all of his co-defendant’s testimony after the co-defendant invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. The defendant was entitled to have the exculpatory evidence presented by the co-defendant considered by the jury:
County Court erred in sua sponte striking the entire testimony of his codefendant after the codefendant invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, and we therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … . We conclude that the court erred in failing to “weigh the options” in a “threshold inquiry” to determine whether “less drastic alternatives” were available, other than striking the entire testimony of the codefendant … . Here, the codefendant provided testimony that, if allowed to remain in the record, would have supported defendant’s positions that defendant did not engage in any scheme to defraud, and that the codefendant had pleaded guilty with respect to similar charges brought against him in order to avoid harsher penalties, and not because the codefendant had engaged in any fraudulent conduct. We further conclude that defendant had the right to have such “relevant and exculpatory testimony considered by the jury” … . We also conclude that the court’s error in striking the codefendant’s testimony is not harmless inasmuch as “the proof against defendant [is] not overwhelming and there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error” … . People v Chadick, 2014 NY Slip Op 07789, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, found that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed because the People failed to prove the defendant intelligently waived his right to remain silent and because the People failed to prove his statements were made voluntarily. The evidence indicated defendant has an IQ of 63 or 68. There was a video of defendant’s interrogation. And the defense presented expert opinion evidence that the defendant was not capable of intelligently waiving his Miranda rights, and, because of the leading nature of the interrogation and defendant’s excessively compliant nature, the defendant did not make his statements voluntarily:
At the Huntley hearing, the People presented the expert testimony of a forensic psychiatrist who interviewed defendant in jail and reviewed the videotape of his confession. The People’s expert acknowledged that defendant was “intellectually handicapped,” with a full-scale IQ of 68, but concluded that defendant was “not that retarded” and could understand his Miranda rights. The defense expert testified that defendant’s IQ placed him in the “mentally retarded range of intellectual functioning.” Defendant’s verbal IQ was 63, which placed him in the first percentile, meaning that he performed worse than 99% of the test population. Based upon defendant’s “very poor” level of verbal functioning, the defense expert opined that, although defendant was “able to understand the words of the Miranda rights,” he was “not capable of intelligently waiving” those rights. He further opined that defendant was “a very suggestible and very compliant man as is not atypical of persons who are mentally retarded,” which placed him at risk of falsely confessing. * * *
Where a “person of subnormal intelligence” is involved, “close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” … . “A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” … . A suspect of “subnormal intelligence” may effectively waive his or her Miranda rights “so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” …, i.e., “how the Miranda rights affected the custodial interrogation” (id. at 289). It must therefore be shown that the suspect “grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to the subject’s disadvantage; and that an attorney’s assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued. What will suffice to meet this burden will vary from one case to the next” … . * * *
As the defense expert testified at trial, “[w]hat became very clear in the video . . . was that [defendant] changed his answers based on the kind of questioning that was done to him. In other words, he was asked the question, the same question over and over again. So it no doubt became clear to him that he was answering the wrong way. So he changed his answers to be what he believed the cop wanted to know.” Many, although not all, of defendant’s responses consisted of “mmm-hmm,” yes, and a parroting back of the detective’s statements. The detective also told defendant that he had spoken to the victim and her mother, that the victim was “not lying,” and that the medical examination was going to show that “something happened” between defendant and the victim. The defense expert testified that such tactics “would lead [defendant] to question his own memory of the situation which isn’t good to begin with. He’s got deficits in memory. So if presented with memory that would counteract what he believed to be true, he would change his answer.” People v Knapp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07801, 4th Dept 11-14-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy