You are here: / THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RELIGIOUS ENTITIES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED ON THE...

Search Results

/ ,

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RELIGIOUS ENTITIES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED ON THE BASIS OF NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW; THEREFORE COURTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ADJUDICATING THE MATTER BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dispute between plaintiff church and defendant, which has some form of supervisory authority over plaintiff church, could not be adjudicated in a court pursuant to the First Amendment:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs . . . Civil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution” … .

We conclude that none of the relief requested by plaintiff in its complaint may be decided by a court based on neutral principles of law … . Instead, resolution of those issues would “necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice” … . United Church of Friendship v New York Dist. of Assemblies of God, 2023 NY Slip Op 05090, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Where the resolution of a dispute between religious entities requires a court to inquire into religious doctrine or practice, the First Amendment prohibits court involvement.

 

/ , ,

LYING TO AN INVESTIGATOR WHO RECORDS THE LIE IN A REPORT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A “FALSIFYING A BUSINESS RECORD” CHARGE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the People did not present legally sufficient evidence of the “falsifying a business record” charge. The People alleged defendant lied to the sheriff who interviewed him resulting in a false entry in the sheriff’s report. The report itself was not entered into evidence:

… [T]o meet its burden, the prosecution relied on testimony from a county sheriff’s office sergeant that, during the investigation into a shooting incident, he recorded his conversation with defendant in a report and the report became part of the business records for the sheriff’s office. The sergeant as well as additional sheriff’s deputies testified that defendant’s version of events conflicted with the concurrent observations of defendant’s gunshot wound by the members of the sheriff’s office. The People’s theory was that, by lying to the sergeant, defendant caused a false entry in the business records of the sheriff’s office. The trial testimony established, however, that the sergeant’s report was written to record the “condition or activity” of the sheriff’s office’s investigation into the shooting (Penal Law § 175.00 [2]). We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the sergeant’s report contained a false record of that investigation. Indeed, the sergeant testified that the report accurately documented defendant’s responses to the sergeant’s investigatory questions. People v Andrews, 2023 NY Slip Op 05085, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: The Appellate Division can consider an unpreserved “legally insufficient evidence” issue.

Practice Point: Lying to an investigator who records the lie in the investigation report cannot be the basis for a “falsifying a business record” charge.

 

/

IN ORDER FOR THE ARREST IN CORTLAND COUNTY ON A JEFFERSON COUNTY WARRANT TO BE VALID THE WARRANT MUST BE ENDORSED BY A JUDGE IN CORTLAND COUNTY BEFORE THE ARREST; HERE THE WARRANT WAS ENDORSED AFTER THE ARREST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined law enforcement in Cortland County did not have the authority to stop defendant’s vehicle and “detain” him on a Jefferson County arrest warrant which had not yet been endorsed by a town justice in Cortland County. To constitute a valid arrest, the warrant must have been endorsed in Cortland County before, not after, the arrest:

… [T]he statute provides that an arrest warrant issued by a city court, a town court, or a village court may be executed “[a]nywhere else in the state upon the written endorsement thereon of a local criminal court of the county in which the arrest is to be made” (CPL 120.70 [2] [b] …). As defendant correctly contends, inasmuch as “[t]he use of the future tense . . . indicates that the statute was intended to relate to [the] future act” of an arrest, the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that the requisite endorsement must be obtained prior to execution of a subject arrest warrant in a non-issuing or non-adjoining county … . People v Burke, 2023 NY Slip Op 05083, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: When the counties are not contiguous, the arrest in one county on a warrant issued in another county will only be valid if the out-of-county warrant is first endorsed by a judge in the county where the arrest is made.

 

/ ,

A DEFENDANT WHO MOVES TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been treated as a motion to vacate based on an excusable default. The defendant raised a question of fact about whether he was properly served by demonstrating the address at issue did not exist. There was no requirement that defendant demonstrate a reasonable excuse:

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a judgment entered upon [the defendant’s] default in appearing or answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction [under CPLR 5015 (a) (4)], the defendant is not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, it is immaterial when defendant first learned of the judgment.

With respect to the merits, defendant contended in support of his motion that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not properly served with the supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). “Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served[, but] . . . a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit” … . We agree with defendant that, by submitting uncontradicted evidence that the address listed in the affidavit of service does not exist, he overcame the presumption of proper service and created “a genuine question” whether the “nail and mail” service used here was effected in accordance with the statute … . L&W Supply Corp. v Built-Rite Drywall Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05079, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was purportedly served by “nail and mail.” Defendant demonstrated the address in the affidavit of service did not exist. Therefore defendant was entitled to a hearing. There was no need for defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default.

 

/ ,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITH LIVE WITNESSES AT WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY IN THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF HIS CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED A HEARING CONDUCTED BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-sex-offender was entitled to a live hearing on his petition for discharge from confinement pursuant to the Menta Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had ordered that the hearing be conducted by written submissions:

… Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d) requires the court to “hold an evidentiary hearing as to retention of [an offender] . . . if it appears from one of the annual submissions to the court under [§ 10.09 (c)] . . . that the [offender] has petitioned, or has not affirmatively waived the right to petition, for discharge.” Petitioner here has petitioned for annual review, and he is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing with live witness testimony where he “may, as a matter of right, testify in his . . . own behalf, call and examine other witnesses, and produce other evidence in his . . . behalf” … . Matter of Charles L. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05075, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had ordered the annual review of petitioner-sex-offender’s confinement be conducted by written submissions. Petitioner, however, pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, was entitled to a hearing with live witnesses at which he may testify.

 

/ , ,

THE MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE TO HEALTHCARE PERSONNEL AND MEDICAL RECORDS WERE RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial (liability versus damages) in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff made statements to medical personnel which were relevant to liability:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he fell from an “upper patio or balcony” of an apartment building … . We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants-respondents’ motion to bifurcate the trial with respect to the issues of liability and damages. “As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately” … . Here, however, we conclude that the issue of liability is not distinct from the issue of plaintiff’s injuries because plaintiff made statements to several of his medical care providers following his fall that render the testimony of several medical witnesses as well as hospital and medical records relevant to the liability phase of the trial. Plaintiff has thus established that bifurcation would not “assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … .  Bogumil v Greenbaum Family Holdings, LP, 2023 NY Slip Op 05069, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: It is usual to bifurcate the liability and damages aspects of negligence trials. Here plaintiff’s statements to medical personnel and his medical records were relevant to liability as well as damages. The motion to bifurcate should not, therefore, have been granted.

 

/ ,

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sheriffs did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to justify the stop of defendant’s vehicle in a mall parking lot. A deputy had seen a surveillance video showing defendant going into the mall with empty bags from a store which was not in the mall and leaving a few minutes later with items in the bags:

The deputies readily acknowledged … that bringing outside bags into the mall was not unlawful or violative of mall policy, that it was not uncommon for mall visitors to return merchandise in bags that were not from the original store, and that mall visitors could properly put merchandise into personal, non-store bags if it was paid for. The first deputy conceded that, while viewing the live surveillance video, he did not observe defendant or the other individuals stealing anything from the subject store, and the second deputy likewise acknowledged that, prior to the vehicle stop, he had not made any observations to indicate that defendant or the other individuals had failed to pay for the merchandise. Additionally, the first deputy observed defendant and the other individuals walking, not running, back to the vehicle after exiting the store, and conceded that it was possible that they had purchased the merchandise during their time in the store … . People v Mcmillon, 2023 NY Slip Op 05064, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here the deputies conceded people do bring bags from other stores into the mall and can use those bags for purchases. Therefore, without more, video surveillance of the defendant entering the mall with empty bags from a “non-mall” store and then leaving with items in the bags did not justify the subsequent vehicle-stop.

 

/ ,

HERE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE WILL WAS IN A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT AND THE WILL WAS PREPARED BY AN ATTORNEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENEFICIARY; THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OBJECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Surrogate’s Court, determined the objections to probate of the will alleging undue influence should not have been dismissed. Here the will was prepared by an attorney for a beneficiary of the will:

“Generally, [t]he burden of proving undue influence . . . rests with the party asserting its existence . . . . Where, however, there was a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary and the decedent, [a]n inference of undue influence arises which requires the beneficiary to come forward with an explanation of the circumstances of the transaction . . . , i.e., to prove the transaction fair and free from undue influence” … . Here, there are questions of fact whether the will’s sole beneficiary and her husband were in confidential relationships with decedent and, if so, whether the will was free from undue influence, which preclude judgment as a matter of law.

Further, where, as here, “a will has been prepared by an attorney associated with a beneficiary, an explanation is called for, and it is a question of fact . . . as to whether the proffered explanation is adequate” … . Matter of Cher, 2023 NY Slip Op 05062, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here issues of fact re: undue influence were raised by the beneficiary’s confidential relationship with the decedent and by association between the beneficiary and the attorney who drafted the will.

 

/ , ,

RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal of Supreme Court’s ruling that the regulation requiring hospitals to mandate COVID vaccines for certain personnel exceeded the state’s authority has been rendered moot. The state has repealed the regulation. The exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply:

“[A]lthough the issue of the lawfulness of the [regulation] implemented as part of the extraordinary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial and novel, that issue is not likely to recur” given the once-in-a-century nature of the pandemic and the emergency governmental response thereto … . Moreover, “the issue is not of the type that typically evades review” … . Indeed, the regulation at issue here received significant review from numerous state and federal courts … . In any event, under the circumstances of this case, we would “decline to invoke the mootness exception” … . Matter of Medical Professionals for Informed Consent, Individually & On Behalf of Its Members, Kristen Robillard, M.D., Zarina Hernandez-schipplick, M.D., Margaret Florini, A.S.C.P., Olyesya Girich, Rt (r), & Elizabeth Storelli, R.N., Individually & On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Bassett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05052, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Health care workers lost their jobs if they refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 based upon the regulation at issue here. At this writing, the COVID booster campaign continues unabated for everyone over six months of age. Yet the Fourth Department refused to consider whether the regulation was valid and enforceable, instead declaring the pandemic over and unlikely to occur again.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STEPS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WERE LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendants created or had notice of the slippery condition of the steps alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Defendants presented no evidence about when the steps were last cleaned or inspected:

Defendant Bruhilde Koenig testified during her deposition that she painted the concrete steps leading down to plaintiff’s basement apartment with nonslip paint, and that she never had issues with the patio being slippery when wet prior to plaintiff’s accident. However, she presented no testimony as to the condition of the steps on the day of the accident or as to when the steps had most recently been inspected or cleaned. Plaintiff testified that it was “wet and misty” at the time of the accident, that he observed standing water on the steps, and that he had previously asked Koenig to place safety strips on the staircase, as he and his daughter had slipped and fallen in the past during rainy weather. Plaintiff also testified that the steps were “irregular” and not “very well uniformed [sic].” Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants created or had notice of the alleged defect. Iaccarino v Koenig, 2023 NY Slip Op 05037, First Dept 10-5-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, the property owner cannot demonstrate a lack of notice of the slippery condition without presenting evidence demonstrating when the area was last inspected or cleaned.

 

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