You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing and suppression of the seized evidence and statements should have been granted. Defendant was accused of a knifepoint robbery of a gas station and was identified in a showup procedure. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the initial stop of the defendant and therefore did not establish the legality of the police conduct:

“On a motion to suppress, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” … . “Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion” … . Here, at the suppression hearing, the People failed to present any evidence establishing the basis for the police to have made the initial stop of the defendant. Thus, the People failed to carry their burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance, and all evidence recovered as a result of the unlawful stop must be suppressed … . People v Vazquez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07461, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: If, at the suppression hearing, the People do not present any evidence of the initial contact between the police and the defendant, they do not meet their burden to show the legality of the police conduct and suppression is required.

 

/ ,

THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY (A WATER BOTTLE UNDER THE ACCELERATOR) WAS OF THE DEFENDANT’S OWN MAKING; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT DRIVER’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department determined: (1) the emergency doctrine did not apply in this traffic accident case because the defendant driver caused the water bottle to fall from the cup holder where it lodged under the accelerator; (2) the cause of action alleging gross negligence and seeking punitive damages properly survived summary judgment; and (3) punitive damages are not available against defendant’s employer [Silvarole] pursuant to the respondeat superior theory:

… “[T]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . The “emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … .  … [T]he record … establishes that Davis [defendant driver] was the only person in the vehicle, and defendants did not submit evidence that any other person was responsible for the alleged emergency … . Thus, we conclude that defendants failed to demonstrate that the emergency encountered was not of Davis’s own making, “i.e., that [Davis] did not create or contribute to it” … . * * *

Punitive damages may be awarded “based on intentional actions or actions which, while not intentional, amount to gross negligence, recklessness, or wantonness . . . or conscious disregard of the rights of others or for conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard” … . * * * Defendants … failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that Davis’s conduct, specifically his decision to look for and retrieve the obstacle while the tractor-trailer was in motion—despite the fact that his brakes were in working order—did not “amount to gross negligence, recklessness, or wantonness . . . or conscious disregard of the rights of others” … . …

Plaintiff seeks to hold Silvarole liable for punitive damages under a theory of vicarious liability. However, punitive damages are unavailable under such a theory absent limited circumstances not present here … . Miller v Silvarole Trucking Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07348, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the emergency doctrine does not apply where the emergency is of the defendant’s own making, here a water bottle under the accelerator.

Practice Point: The gross negligence cause of action and demand for punitive damages in this traffic accident case survived summary judgment.

Practice Point: Punitive damages are not available against the driver’s employer under a vicarious liability theory.

 

/

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE THE SOLE MOTIVATION OF DEFENDANTS WAS DISINETERESTED MALEVOLENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for prima facie tort:

“The requisite elements of a cause of action for prima facie tort are (1) the intentional infliction of harm, (2) which results in special damages, (3) without any excuse or justification, (4) by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful” … .. A plaintiff alleging prima facie tort must therefore allege that the defendant’s “sole motivation was ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” … . … Although the complaint alleges that defendants ” ‘acted maliciously’ and ‘with disinterested malice,’ ” … , it does not allege that defendants’ “sole motivation was ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” … . “There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara, LLC v Geico Cas. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 07343, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The criteria for prima facie tort include an allegation that the “sole motivation” for a defendant’s conduct was “disinterested malevolence.”

 

/

AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an unrestricted easement which allows access to a lake encompasses the right to installation, maintenance and use of a dock:

… [T]he relevant deeds … established that there were no restrictions on the easement and that the purpose of the right-of-way was to provide ingress to and egress from the lake … .. Given the purpose of the easement and the absence of restrictions, “any reasonable lawful use [by plaintiffs] within the contemplation of the grant is permissible” … , and the installation, maintenance, and use of a dock at the end of a right-of-way providing access to a lake is a “reasonable use incidental to the purpose of the easement” … . Mosley v Parnell, 2022 NY Slip Op 07342, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: An unrestricted easement allowing access to a lake encompasses the right to install, maintain and use a dock.

 

/ ,

SUPPRESSION OF THE WEAPON WAS PROPERLY DENIED, BUT DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ADMITTING POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE IS RARELY APPLIED TO UPHOLD A GUILTY PLEA WHERE SUPPRSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED THE PLEA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea to possession of a weapon could not have been affected by the failure to suppress his statement admitting possession of the weapon. The Fourth Department determined the statement was a product of unwarned custodial interrogation:

‘The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . “Although the police may ask a suspect preliminary questions at a crime scene in order to find out what is transpiring . . . , where criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . Here, after defendant had been restrained and handcuffed, an officer asked defendant, “what’s going on? Are you all right? Are you okay?” Defendant responded, “you saw what I had on me. I was going to do what I had to do.” We conclude that the interaction between defendant and the officer “had traveled far beyond a ‘threshold crime scene inquiry’ ” and, under the circumstances, it was likely that the officer’s particular questions ” ‘would elicit evidence of a crime and, indeed, it did elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . …

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he [or she] states or reveals his [or her] reason for pleading guilty” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379-380 [1978]). “The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and [the Court of Appeals has] recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea’ ” … . People v Robles, 2022 NY Slip Op 07336, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: This case is rare exception to the rule that a guilty plea will not stand if a suppression motion should have been granted. Here the appellate division determined suppression of defendant’s statement admitting possession of the weapon would not have affected his decision to plead guilty because the weapon itself had not been suppressed. There was a dissent.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS PRESCRIBED ATIVAN, WHICH CAUSES DROWSINESS, IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, WAS DISCHARGED WHILE UNDER ITS INFLUENCE AND WAS INVOLVED IN A CAR ACCIDENT; THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE EFFECTS OF ATIVAN BOTH SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Plaintiff was treated at the emergency department of defendant hospital and prescribed Ativan, a drug which causes drowsiness. Plaintiff was released while under the influence of the drug and had a car accident. Plaintiff alleged he was negligently discharged and was not informed of the possible effects of Ativan:

… [T]he evidence … raised issues of fact whether Iannolo [the treating physician] deviated from the standard of care by discharging plaintiff at a time when the concentration of Ativan in his system was at or near its peak and while plaintiff was experiencing the effects of the medication, including drowsiness. Those submissions also raised issues of fact whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . Regarding the hospital’s motion, the evidence that the hospital submitted raised issues of fact whether … a nurse employed by the hospital deviated from the standard of care and committed an act of negligence independent of Iannolo … , by failing to explain the discharge instructions to plaintiff or advise him of the possible effects of Ativan, and whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … .

… [T]he hospital … contends that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to the negligence cause of action against it. We agree … . “A complaint sounds in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence where, as here, the challenged conduct [by a nurse] ‘constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician’ to a particular patient” … . Johnson v Auburn Community Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07332, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Discharging a patient from the hospital emergency room while under the influence of Ativan, which causes drowsiness, may be the basis of a medical malpractice action stemming from a subsequent car accident. The failure to explain the effects of Ativan was deemed a separate cause of action sounding in medical malpractice (not ordinary negligence).

 

/

PLAINTIFF PULLED A LOAD OF WASTE BACKWARDS THROUGH AN ACCESS DOOR APPARENTLY EXPECTING THE LIFT TO BE POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE DOOR; THE LIFT HAD MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE GROUND; THE ACCESS DOOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED BEFORE THE LIFT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ACCESS DOOR LOCK, A SAFETY DEVICE, WAS MISSING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff pulled a load of waste backwards through an access door which did not have a lock and then fell from the third floor because the lift which he (apparently) assumed was positioned outside the access door had moved to a different floor. Each access door was supposed to have a lock and the lift operator was supposed to lock the door before moving to a different floor:

Plaintiff met his burden of establishing the absence of an adequate safety device that could have prevented his fall, namely, a lock on the third-floor access door … .. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Here, there is no evidence in the record that plaintiff removed the lock and was therefore the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was negligent in walking backwards out the access door and in failing to look back prior to going through the door to ensure the lift was there, we conclude that such “actions [would] render him [merely] contributorily negligent, a defense unavailable under [Labor Law § 240 (1)]” … . Hyde v BVSHSSF Syracuse LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07329, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Even though plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent in not looking behind him as he pulled a load of waste through an access door, contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

/ , ,

THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the out-of-possession landlord was required under the terms of the lease to repair structural defects in the roof and walls and there was a question of fact whether such defects caused a crack in the floor. The cracked floor was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition which cause a load of tines in a payloader to fall and injure plaintiff:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when tires that were being moved by a forklift struck him when they fell from the forklift after it drove over a crack in the concrete floor. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the complaint asserted a negligence cause of action against Estes Express Lines (defendant), which owned the premises on which plaintiff was injured, alleging that defendant negligently permitted a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that contributed to his injury, i.e., the crack in the concrete floor. * * *

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendant was liable based on its contractual obligation to maintain the structural integrity of the roof and walls. … [T]he court …. properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. … [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit from one of plaintiff’s former colleagues and from a code enforcement officer, who each averred that the damage to the floor may have been caused by water damage or water infiltration due to poor maintenance of the roof and walls. Plaintiff’s former colleague further averred that defendant had conducted annual inspections of the property and had previously repaired damage to the floor of the premises. Thus, there is a question of fact concerning defendant’s liability for defects in the condition of the floor … . Weaver v Deronde Tire Supply, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07328, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord is liable for injury caused by dangerous conditions on the property can be determined by the terms of the lease. Here the lease required the landlord to repair structural defects in the roof and walls. Plaintiff alleged water entered the premises through those structural defects causing a crack in the floor which contributed to his injury. Plaintiff’s allegations survived summary judgment.

 

/ ,

THE CONDEMNATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WAS NOT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES; THE DETERMINATION TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNULLED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the determination to condemn real property, over an extensive dissent, held that the purpose for the condemnation was not “commercial” as required by the statutes authorizing condemnation by the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA):

Petitioners commenced this original proceeding pursuant to EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] 207 seeking to annul the determination of respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) to condemn certain real property by eminent domain. Pursuant to EDPL 207 (C), this Court “shall either confirm or reject the condemnor’s determination and findings.” Our scope of review is limited to “whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) the condemnor had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with [the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)] and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” … .

… OCIDA lacked the requisite authority to acquire the subject property. As an industrial development agency, OCIDA’s statutory purposes are … to “promote, develop, encourage and assist in the acquiring . . . [of] . . . commercial . . . facilities” (General Municipal Law § 858). OCIDA’s powers of eminent domain are restricted by General Municipal Law § 858 (4), which provides, in relevant part, that an industrial development agency shall have the power “[t]o acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law, or otherwise and to use, real property . . . therein necessary for its corporate purposes.” The purposes enumerated in the statute do not include projects related to hospital or healthcare-related facilities (see § 858). While OCIDA’s determination and findings indicate that the subject property was to be acquired for use as a surface parking lot, the record establishes that, contrary to respondents’ assertion, the primary purpose of the acquisition was not a commercial purpose. Rather, the property was to be acquired because it was a necessary component of a larger hospital and healthcare facility project. Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v Oneida County Indus. Dev. Agency, 2022 NY Slip Op 07327, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: If the purpose for the condemnation of real property does not comply with the purposes allowed by the controlling states, the determination to condemn the property will be annulled by the courts.

 

/ ,

PHONE CALLS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON SUPPORTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE BUT NOT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined phone calls, as opposed to “contact with the protected person,” did not support the contempt first degree convictions. However the phone calls did support contempt second degree:

The … five counts of criminal contempt in the first degree … are based on evidence establishing that an order of protection had been issued against defendant for the benefit of a person and that on five occasions defendant made telephone calls from the Monroe County Jail to that person. … … With respect to those counts, the People were required to establish that defendant committed the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree … , and that he did so “by violating that part of a duly served order of protection . . . which requires the . . . defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, defendant was in jail when the calls at issue were made and the People failed to “prove[], beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had any contact with the protected person during the charged incident[s]” … . People v Caldwell, 2022 NY Slip Op 07325, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here criminal contempt first degree required proof defendant failed to “stay away” from the protected person. That portion of the order was not violated by defendant’s phone calls to the protected person (which supported convictions for criminal contempt second degree).

 

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