You are here: / Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant...

Search Results

/ ,

Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant Was Notified of Lead-Paint-Injury Exclusion in Policy

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined defendant (Donnelly) was notified of an amendment to his insurance policy which disclaimed coverage for injury related to the presence of lead paint (and therefore plaintiff-insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant in a lead-paint-injury case).  The court also determined that the lead-paint-injury exclusion did not violate public policy. With respect to the proof defendant was notified of the amendment, the court deemed evidence of the usual notification procedure sufficient:

…[W]e conclude that the documents established as a matter of law that the lead exclusion was properly added to Donnelly’s insurance policy and that Donnelly was notified of that amendment.  Although plaintiff did not submit evidence that the notice of the amendment was mailed to Donnelly and Donnelly could not recall receiving the notice, plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form “of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed,” thereby giving rise to a presumption that Donnelly received the notice … .  …[T]he evidence submitted by plaintiff established that the “office practice [was] geared so as to ensure the likelihood that [the] notice[s of amendment] . . . [were] always properly addressed and mailed” … .  Specifically, the evidence established the procedure used by plaintiff for generating notices whenever an insurance policy was amended, and the documentary evidence established that a notice was generated for Donnelly’s policy during the year in which the lead exclusion was added to the policy. In addition, plaintiff submitted evidence that it placed the notices in envelopes with windows so that the address on the notice was the one used for mailing.  The envelopes were then delivered to the mail room, where they were sealed and the appropriate postage was added. Thereafter, the mail was hand delivered to the post office that was located adjacent to plaintiff’s parking lot. Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v Donnelly…, 857, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/ ,

Prior Stipulation Based Upon Inaccurate Information Properly Vacated

In a divorce proceeding, the Fourth Department upheld Supreme Court’s vacating the child support and maintenance provisions of a prior stipulation, finding that the wife had not disclosed all of her assets and earnings at the time the stipulation was entered.  The Fourth Department also upheld $50,000 of imputed annual income assigned to the wife by Supreme Court:

… [T]he court did not err in vacating the child support and maintenance provisions of the parties’ October 2009 stipulation.  In that stipulation, the parties had agreed to impute income to the wife in the amount of $15,000, and the husband had agreed to maintenance and child support awards to the wife based on that imputed income.  Although “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (…see generally CPLR 2104), “[a] stipulation of settlement should be closely scrutinized and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unjust because of the other spouse’s overreaching” … .  We agree with the court that “a reasonable inference exists that the [wife did not] fully disclose[] h[er] financial assets . . . , and, as a result, the terms of the agreement were so inequitable as to be manifestly unfair to the [husband]” … . …[T]he wife had over $100,000 more in income than was imputed to her in the stipulation, and her income was more than two times what the husband had earned in any of the years before the stipulation.  We thus conclude that, regardless whether the wife can be said to have committed fraud, the wife’s failure to disclose her earnings in the stock market resulted in an agreement that was manifestly unfair to the husband.  Marlinski v Marlinski, 979, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/

Visitation Details Should Not Have Been Left to Supervising Agency

The Fourth Department determined Family Court erred by delegating its authority with respect to the visitation schedule and sibling visits to the agency supervising the mother’s visitation:

…[T]he court “erred in failing to set a supervised visitation schedule, implicitly leaving it to the supervisor to determine” … .  By ordering only that visitation “shall take place through the Catholic Charities Therapeutic Supervised Visitation program,” the court improperly delegated its authority to the supervising agency … .  We note in addition that the court erred in merely indicating that “access should include the child’s siblings, if that can be accommodated by the program.”  If the court determined that sibling visitation is indeed in the best interests of the child, the court should specify in its order that the agency or organization designated to supervise visitation must be able to accommodate sibling visits.  We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court to determine the access schedule and whether sibling visitation shall occur. Matter of Green v Bontzolakes, 1034, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/ , , , ,

“Patient/Visitor Occurrence Report” Not Statutorily Privileged in Malpractice Action Against Hospital

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiffs, in a medical malpractice action, to see a “patient/visitor occurrence report” generated by defendant hospital.  The court noted that the report is subject to the privilege set forth in Education Law 6527 (3), but the hospital did not establish the report was generated in connection with a quality assurance review or a malpractice prevention program:

…[T]he hospital failed to meet its burden of establishing that the report was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j” … .  Moreover, with respect to the privilege set forth in Public Health Law § 2805-j, we deem the conclusory statement in the affidavit submitted by the hospital’s director of risk management that “[t]he report was prepared solely and exclusively in connection with the hospital’s malpractice prevention program, as required by statute” to be insufficient to meet the hospital’s burden of demonstrating that the form was actually generated at the behest of the hospital’s malpractice prevention program.  Slayton … v Kolli…, 1083, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/ ,

Representation by Counsel on Unrelated Matter Recently Concluded by Conviction Did Not Preclude Defendant from Validly Waiving Right to Counsel

The Fourth Department noted that the representation of defendant by counsel in an unrelated matter which had just been disposed of by conviction did not prevent defendant from validly waiving his right to counsel when interviewed by the police about the instant charge:

“Under New York’s indelible right to counsel rule, a defendant in custody in connection with a criminal matter for which he is represented by counsel may not be interrogated in the absence of his attorney with respect to that matter or an unrelated matter unless he waives the right to counsel in the presence of his attorney” … .  However, “[w]hen the prior charge has been disposed of by dismissal or conviction, the indelible right to counsel disappears and the defendant is capable of waiving counsel on the new charge” … .  Here, a police detective testified at the Huntley hearing that defendant had been sentenced on the unrelated criminal case before the detective questioned him regarding these crimes, and County Court therefore properly determined that the police were not precluded from questioning him regarding the instant crimes … .  We reject defendant’s contention that the right to counsel lasted until at least 30 days after sentencing, to allow for the filing of a notice of appeal … . People v Koonce, 1031, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/

Maximum Sentence Deemed Unduly Harsh and Severe

The Fourth Department determined the imposition of the maximum sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (15 years) was unduly harsh and severe:

Defendant has no prior felony convictions, and he served four years in the United States Navy, receiving an honorable discharge.  Also, it is undisputed that defendant did not threaten anyone with the weapon or use it in a violent manner. Although we are mindful that defendant’s actions endangered the lives of innocent people, including the police officers who were pursuing his vehicle, we conclude that the maximum punishment is not warranted. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years (see generally CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), to be followed by the five-year period of postrelease supervision imposed by the court. People v Atchison, 1091, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/

Temporary Lawful Possession of Weapon Defense Disproved/Justification Defense in Context of Criminal Possession of a Weapon Explained

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was sufficient to disprove defendant’s defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon, and explained how the justification defense relates to criminal possession of a weapon:

Even if, as defendant contends, he originally acquired the gun by disarming his alleged assailant in the course of a robbery, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he thereafter possessed it with the requisite unlawful intent … .  After evading his alleged robber, defendant returned to the scene of the robbery with the gun drawn and fired five shots, one of which struck his alleged assailant in the leg. Defendant then regained possession of his property, a duffel bag containing $27,000 in cash, and fled upon the approach of the police. Such conduct is “utterly at odds with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor”… .

Defendant further contends that he had no duty to retreat, but was justified in acting as he did, because the People failed to prove that he could have retreated with complete safety.  We reject that contention.  It is well settled that the defense of justification, which involves the “justifiable use of physical force” (Penal Law § 35.05 …), does not apply to criminal possession of a weapon … .  Thus, the “duty to retreat” rule, which applies to the defense of justification in connection with the use of deadly physical force (see § 35.15 [2] [a]), is not relevant here. Nonetheless, justification is relevant to a defendant’s intent in using a weapon.  In other words, “[t]he use of a firearm to engage in conduct that is justifiable under the law is not unlawful.  Thus, an intent to use a firearm against another justifiably is not an intent to use it unlawfully” … .  Here, however, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant “possessed the firearm with the intent to use it against another unlawfully and not solely with the intent to use it justifiably”… . People v Bailey, 1080, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/

People’s Delay In Providing Bill of Particulars Did Not Require Dismissal Under Speedy Trial Statute

The Fourth Department determined that the People’s delay in providing a bill of particulars did not require dismissal of the indictment pursuant to the speedy trial statute:

…[D]efendant asserted that the People’s bill of particulars was due on January 7, 2009—15 days after defendant’s request (see CPL 200.95 [2])—but that it was not served until August 10, 2009.  According to defendant, the time period from January 7 to August 10, which exceeds six months, constitutes postreadiness delay that should be charged to the People, thus warranting dismissal under CPL 30.30.  We reject that contention. Prior to their failure to serve a timely bill of particulars, the People announced their readiness for trial on the record, and “[f]ailing to serve a bill of particulars is in no way inconsistent with the prosecution’s continued readiness” … .  We addressed a similar contention in People v Runion (107 AD2d 1080), determining that “[t]he court should not have granted the motion made under CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment because of the delays of the prosecutor, after she had announced her readiness for trial, in providing discovery materials and in serving a supplemental bill of particulars.  Defendant’s remedies for such delays do not include dismissal under CPL 30.30” (id. at 1080).  People v Griffin, 1154, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/ ,

Prosecutorial Misconduct Noted (Conviction Upheld However)

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department noted its agreement with defendant’s assertions of prosecutorial misconduct:

We agree with defendant that it was improper for the prosecutor to remark that a witness was afraid of defendant inasmuch as that was not a fair comment on the evidence … .  We further agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly used defendants past crimes of violence to suggest that the witness had “a reason to be afraid.”  It is fundamental that the function of crossexamining a defendant about his or her prior criminal, vicious, or immoral acts “is solely to impeach [the defendant’s] credibility as a witness” … .  Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s isolated remarks were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial …, particularly considering that this was a bench trial… .  People v King, 1135, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

/

Shooting Accomplished With Two Weapons Constituted a Single Continuing Offense/Indictment Not Duplicitous

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a shooting accomplished with more than one weapon did not constitute two distinct offenses, but rather constituted a continuing offense, and, therefore, the indictment was not duplicitous:

It is well established that, “ ‘[w]here an offense may be committed by doing any one of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of the others’ ” … .  Contrary to the position of the dissent, we conclude that the evidence at trial established that the multiple shots fired from two separate firearms “constitute[d] a single uninterrupted assault rather than a series of distinct criminal acts . . . , and the assault ‘occurred over a short time frame, without apparent abeyance, and was triggered by a single incident of anger’ ” … .  “The fact that more than one dangerous instrument allegedly was used by the defendant[], and more than one [shot] was [fired] causing the [victim] several injuries, does not transform this single criminal incident into multiple assaults or acts of [reckless endangerment] which must be charged by separate counts” … .  We respectfully disagree with the position of the dissent that there were separate impulses with an abeyance between them.  Rather, the evidence established that defendant assaulted the victim and his fiancée in an attempt to seek revenge for the fiancée’s alleged assault on defendant’s sister. There was one motive and one impulse:  to seek revenge.  We see no distinction between a situation in which an assaulting defendant takes the time to reload one weapon and one in which the assaulting defendant takes the time to obtain a second weapon with the single impulse of continuing the ongoing assault.

With respect to the count of reckless endangerment in the first degree, the conduct encompassed by that count was the act of endangering the life of the victim’s fiancée, who was in the vicinity of the victim the entire time defendant was shooting at the victim. “Where . . . a crime by its nature as defined in the Penal Law may be committed either by one act or by multiple acts and can be characterized as a continuing offense over time, the indictment may charge the continuing offense in a single count” … .  Under the circumstances of this case, the crime of reckless endangerment “involved a continuing offense” and could therefore encompass multiple acts in one count without being duplicitous … .  In our view, the fact that the multiple shots were fired from two separate firearms did not transform this continuing offense into two separate offenses.  We disagree with the dissent’s assumption that the fiancée was “potentially out of harm’s way” when she sought refuge in a vehicle during the barrage of gunshots inasmuch as the vehicle was still in the vicinity of the gunshots.  “[R]eckless endangerment is a conduct specific . . . crime,” and here the conduct underlying that count of the indictment was the firing of multiple gunshots in the vicinity of the fiancée … .  We thus conclude that the indictment was not rendered duplicitous by the court’s instruction that the jury could find defendant guilty of the assault and reckless endangerment charges if it found that defendant used either firearm or both.   We reject the view of the dissent that “ ‘there were two distinct shooting incidents’ ” … .  People v Flanders, 963, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

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