You are here: / Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s...

Search Results

/ ,

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was properly denied, even though the billing documents for the insurance company’s (State Farm’s) examining physician were sought for cross-examination and impeachment purposes:

State Farm moved to quash the subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2304 on the ground that it was plaintiff’s intent to use the subpoenaed materials to impeach the examining physician’s general credibility. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that she intended to use the subpoenaed documents to cross-examine the examining physician at trial with respect to his bias or interest. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

“It is . . . well settled that a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted only where the materials sought are utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . “Moreover, the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are utterly irrelevant is on the person being subpoenaed” … . It is “proper to allow cross-examination of a physician regarding the fact that the defendant’s insurance company retained him to examine the plaintiff in order to show bias or interest on the part of the witness” … . Questions concerning the bias, motive or interest of a witness are relevant and should be “freely permitted and answered” …  and, thus, plaintiff is entitled to discovery materials that will assist her in preparing such questions. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Dominici v Ford, 2014 NY Slip Op 05081, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Summary Judgment Properly Awarded in Derivative Child-Neglect Proceeding

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded in a derivative child-neglect proceeding, based in large part on findings made in prior neglect proceedings:

“‘Although it is a drastic procedural device, Family Court is authorized to grant summary judgment in a neglect proceeding where no triable issue of fact exists'” … . Neglect or abuse of one child typically may not serve as the sole support for a finding of derivative abuse or neglect; however, where the proof of “past neglect and abuse demonstrably ‘evidence[s] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood, proof of abuse or neglect of other children is alone sufficient to sustain a finding of abuse or neglect of another child'” … . A prior determination should be “sufficiently proximate in time to reasonably conclude that the problematic conditions continue to exist” …, but “there is no ‘bright-line, temporal rule beyond which we will not consider older child protective determinations'” … .

Here, petitioner established a prima facie case for summary judgment with the affidavit of its counsel setting forth the prior proceedings, the Family Court records of such proceedings and an affidavit from a caseworker. The nature of the acts that Family Court had found in the 2010 proceedings as having been perpetrated upon a child entrusted to respondent’s care established a fundamental defect in respondent’s understanding of parental duties. The caseworker set forth, among other things, respondent’s failure to complete preventive services, including sex offender treatment. Although respondent’s affidavit in opposition offered explanations for his inability to complete some services, he acknowledged that he had not yet completed sex offender treatment. Given the nature of the 2008 acts found in the 2010 proceedings, together with the fact that respondent is still in, but has not yet successfully completed, sex offender treatment, we are unpersuaded that Family Court erred in granting summary judgment… . Matter of Ilonni I…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04987, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Precedent Precluded Denial of Benefits

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined precedent required that benefits be afforded the claimant because his testimony he was engaged in a job search was deemed credible by the Board:

…”[E]ven though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made,” the Board’s “failure to conform to [its] precedent will . . . require reversal on the law as arbitrary” if the Board has failed to explain the reason for its departure … . As relevant here, the Board has previously determined that a claimant remains attached to the labor market when he or she is actively participating in, among other things, a job-location service — such as One-Stop Career Centers — or Board-approved vocational rehabilitation, and that a claimant’s credible testimony regarding that participation is sufficient to establish attachment to the labor market (see Employer: Classic Bindery, Inc., 2011 WL 3612749, *2, 2011 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 3997, *5-6 [WCB No. G021 5031, July 27, 2011]). The Board here expressly found claimant’s testimony that he was actively participating with One-Stop to be credible but, because claimant did not provide documentation of his participation, the Board concluded that he failed to adequately demonstrate attachment to the labor market. The Board purported to rely upon a prior decision, Employer: American Axle …, in determining that documentation was necessary but, while American Axle held that documentary evidence of active participation in One-Stop constitutes evidence of attachment to the labor market, it required documentary evidence only in connection with a claimant’s independent job search (id.). American Axle, therefore, does not provide an adequate basis for distinguishing Classic Bindery.  Matter of Winters v Advance Auto Parts, 2014 NY Slip Op 05005, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

County Court Should Have Afforded Defendant Opportunity to Withdraw His Plea Before Imposing an Enhanced Sentence Based Upon Post-Plea Events

The Third Department determined County Court should not have imposed an enhanced sentenced based upon post-plea events without affording the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed … . Here, County Court enhanced defendant’s sentence due to defendant’s arrest while on release pending sentencing. However, the record reflects that defendant was never warned that County Court would not be bound by its sentencing commitment if he were arrested while out on release … . Consequently, County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first providing defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea… . People v Tole, 2014 NY Slip Op 04980, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/ ,

Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Evidence About the Quality of Representation Received by Indigent Defendants

The Third Department determined Supreme Court (acting as the trier of fact) should not have precluded the presentation of expert evidence in a case concerning the quality of legal services received by indigent criminal defendants:

Under familiar rules, expert opinions are admissible on subjects involving professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence” of the trier of fact … . “[T]his principle applies to testimony regarding both ‘the ultimate questions and those of lesser significance'” … . Notably, expert testimony is “appropriate to clarify a wide range of issues calling for the application of accepted professional standards” … .

Here, the experts possess the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge and/or experience to qualify as experts on the operation of indigent defense systems and the evaluation of such systems in light of prevailing professional standards … . * * *

At its core, this litigation is about system-wide conditions relating to and affecting the delivery of public defense — such as caseloads, funding and oversight, among others — and whether these conditions in the defendant counties are such that “the basic constitutional mandate for the provision of counsel to indigent defendants at all critical stages is at risk of being left unmet” … . By virtue of their extensive experience, the experts possess specialized knowledge with respect to the operation of public defense systems, the professional standards applicable to such systems, and the impact of systemic shortcomings on the provision of counsel to indigent criminal defendants at all critical stages. Such particularized knowledge is, manifestly, beyond that of a typical Supreme Court Justice, whose experience is oft confined to case-by-case determinations … . Hurrell-Harring v State of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 05010, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/ ,

Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed

The Third Department determined County Court erred by imposing $100,000 restitution without a hearing.  The People had determined the $100,000 figure was excessive and had requested restitution in the approximate amount of $32,000:

….[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of $100,000 without a hearing. By statute, when a court requires restitution, it must make a finding as to the actual amount of loss and, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]…). Defendant sufficiently preserved this challenge to the increased amount of restitution, in that defense counsel and the People questioned it at sentencing … . Upon review, we find that there is no evidence in the record to support the court’s imposition of $100,000 in restitution. To the contrary, at sentencing the People characterized such figure as “excessive,” stated that they “lacked sufficient documentation and proof” to support that amount, and proffered evidence supporting restitution in the amount of $32,240, a figure to which the victim, the court and defendant had all agreed. Further, there are statutory limits on the amount of restitution, which may be exceeded, as relevant here, provided “‘the amount in excess [is] limited to the return of the victim’s property, including money, or the equivalent value thereof'” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a restitution hearing or a redetermination of restitution consistent with the plea agreement. Given that “[a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” …, under the circumstances here, upon remittal, defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if a hearing is held and the amount of restitution imposed exceeds the originally agreed upon amount, i.e., $32,240. People v Pleasant, 2014 NY Slip Op 04981, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Fraud Cause of Action Seeking Only Lost Profits as Damages Must Be Dismissed

The Third Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action could not go forward because plaintiff sought only lost profits as damages.  Also dismissed and briefly discussed were “conspiracy to commit fraud (not a valid separate cause of action),” prima facie tort and a demand for punitive damages:

Plaintiff’s cause of action alleging fraud requires “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact known to be false and made with the intent to deceive, as well as justifiable reliance and damages” … . * * * “The true measure of damage [for fraud] is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the out-of-pocket rule” … . Damages for fraudulent acts should “compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained” … . As plaintiff does not dispute that it seeks only the lost profit it anticipated earning as a result of conveying the property to BLP, defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action … .

Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleging a conspiracy to commit fraud must also be dismissed because “‘a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action'” … . Plaintiff’s third cause of action for prima facie tort “requires a showing of an intentional infliction of harm, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts that would otherwise be lawful” … . Significantly, “[s]uch acts must be motivated solely by malevolence” … . Plaintiff … makes no claim that defendants were motivated — even in part — by malevolence. As for plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for declaratory relief, it too must be dismissed as entirely unnecessary under the circumstances here … .

Nor, in light of our determination that plaintiff failed to establish its causes of action for fraud and prima facie tort, is this a case for punitive damages. There is no basis upon which to conclude that defendants’ conduct “‘evince[s] a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrate[s] such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations'” … . Route 217, LLC v Greeg, 2014 NY Slip Op 04998, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)

The Third Department determined the ruling in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), requiring that courts always consider youthful offender status for eligible defendants, applied retroactively to a 2008 conviction by guilty plea in which the defendant agreed he would not receive youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (supra), the Court of Appeals, overruling precedent, held that the statutory command in CPL 720.20 (1) that the sentencing court address youthful offender status when a defendant is eligible for such status “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request” (id. at 499). When addressing such status, the sentencing court should set forth factors considered in its determination …, particularly when denying youthful offender status … .

The People * * * assert that, since the sentence was consistent with prevailing precedent when imposed …., the holding in Rudolph should not be applied retroactively. However, notwithstanding the lengthy delay in perfecting this appeal, this case is before us on direct appeal — not a collateral attack — and the law as it now exists controls… . People v Calkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04977, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 200 Actions Against the Town Should Have Been Dismissed—Although the Town Hired Plaintiff to Do Work on the Town’s Right of Way, the Accident Occurred on Adjacent Private Property—Labor Law 200 Action Against the Property Owners Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the Labor Law 240 and 200 actions against the town should have been dismissed because the injury occurred on private land, not town land.  The court further determined that the Labor Law 200 action against the landowners (the Hersheys) should not have been dismissed because the owners did not demonstrate as a matter of law their lack of notice of the dangerous condition.  The plaintiff had been hired by the town to do sidewalk and driveway work on the town’s right of way next to the Hersheys’ property. The plaintiff was parking a backhoe on the Hersheys’ property, with the Hersheys’ permission, when it tipped over into a ravine:

…[W]e agree with the Town that the court erred in denying the Town’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action against it, inasmuch as the Town is not an “owner” for purposes of those statutes … . It is well settled that “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit’ ” … . Here, the accident occurred well outside of the Town’s right-of-way, and the Town had no other interest in or legal authority over the landing area, which was located entirely on the Hersheys’ private property … . The Town established that it was Kenneth Hershey, not the Town, who gave plaintiff permission to park in the landing area; that the Town had no authority to grant such permission to plaintiff; and that Kenneth Hershey directed plaintiff where to park. Further, the Town established that the landing area was not part of the construction site … . No work was being performed in the landing area, and the landing area was not contiguous or in proximity to the construction site … . Moreover, the Town established that it was not necessary for plaintiff to park the backhoe in the landing area. The Town provided plaintiff with parking in a municipal garage, which was located a few miles from the work site. Plaintiff, however, testified at his deposition that he chose to use the landing area because it was closer to the work site and more “convenient” to do so … . Farruggia v Town of Penfield, 2014 NY Slip Op 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Denial of For Cause Challenge to Juror Required Reversal

The Third Department determined the trial court erred in denying defendant’s “for cause” challenge to a juror:

“Prospective jurors who make statements that cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict, and who have given less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality, must be excused” … . Here, during jury selection, juror No. 153 stated that he was “very uncomfortable” about the alleged use of a firearm during the commission of the charged crimes. When asked by defense counsel if his stated discomfort was something that would affect his ability to keep an open mind, juror No. 153 responded, “It might. I can’t say for sure what it is, but it’s a concern to me.”

After questioning of this panel had concluded, and out of the presence of the prospective jurors, defense counsel challenged juror No. 153 for cause. County Court, stating that defense counsel failed to ask any follow-up questions of juror No. 153 at the time the juror made the subject statements in order to make out an appropriate foundation for cause, denied the challenge. Having heard the statements by juror No. 153, County Court should have either granted the challenge for cause or conducted a further inquiry of that juror and obtained express, unequivocal assurances on the record of his impartiality … . People v Young, 2014 NY Slip Op 04975, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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