You are here: / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING...

Search Results

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING A POLICE OFFICER TO COURT TO TESTIFY AT A PRETRIAL HEARING; THE 33-DAY DELAY WAS UNREASONABLE AND CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted and the indictment was dismissed. A 33-day delay in having a police officer come to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People:

The People announced readiness in July 2021 and, subsequently, a combined Huntley and Mapp hearing was held on December 8, 2021. After two officers from the Rochester Police Department testified at that hearing, the prosecutor stated that a third officer was “currently not allowed to come to court due to an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.” The prosecutor said that he was unsure of “who” was telling the officer “not to come to court.” The court thus adjourned the hearing and, ultimately, the officer testified on January 10, 2022, i.e., 33 days later.

… The People failed to establish that they exercised due diligence, i.e. ” ‘credible, vigorous activity’ to make the witness available” … . People v Beason, 2025 NY Slip Op 05598, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here a 33-day unexplained delay in bringing a police officer to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People.

 

/ , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN THE 70’S, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SUPPORTED THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent hiring and retention causes of action against the school district, based on allegations of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a music teacher in the 70’s, should not have been dismissed. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendants included the observed behavior of the music teacher by another teacher, the dismissal of the music teacher from other schools, the conflicting information about arrests in the teacher’s employment applications, the suspicions of other teachers and the failure to report those suspicions:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that on two occasions the music teacher entered the boys’ locker room while plaintiff and his classmates were changing and that on each occasion the gym teacher instructed the music teacher to leave. Although the gym teacher denied observing the music teacher in the boys’ locker room during his deposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit that the gym teacher executed in an unrelated case wherein he averred that he had “heard rumors from many students” that the music teacher had a sexual interest in the male students at the school and that he was “suspicious that [the music teacher] may have had inappropriate relationships with students.” The affidavit reflects that the gym teacher was “vigilant” and “kept an eye on” the music teacher—meeting weekly with another coach to “see if the other had witnessed any inappropriate behavior” by the music teacher—but nonetheless permitted the music teacher to transport students to and from games and swim meets.

* * * [[P]laintiff submitted the music teacher’s testimony, wherein he testified that he had “always” had students visit him at his home and that other teachers were aware that students would visit him at his home, where the abuse of plaintiff is, in part, alleged to have occurred … . …

Plaintiff also submitted an expert affidavit asserting that defendants failed to appropriately train and supervise other teachers and staff to report their knowledge of inappropriate behavior. * * *

… [D]efendants submitted the music teacher’s employment applications, wherein he submitted contradictory responses about whether he had been arrested; a reference from the principal of a junior high school where the music teacher had taught, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and “had a tendency to more or less pal with his seventh grade male students”; and a reference completed by a school counselor employed by a different district, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and that she would not employ him as a teacher in her school system. Harper v Buffalo City Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05595, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of the proof which will raise questions of fact in a Child Victims Act case against a school district alleging negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention.

 

/ ,

THE INSTALLATION OF MOTION-ACTIVATED SECURITY LIGHTS WHICH SHINE INTO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the nuisance cause of action, based upon defendants’ installation of flood lights, should not have been dismissed:

“To establish a claim of private nuisance, a plaintiff must show: ‘an interference (1) substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with [the plaintiff’s] property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act’ ” … . The interference “must not be fanciful, slight or theoretical, but certain and substantial, and must interfere with the physical comfort of the ordinarily reasonable person” … .

… [T]he amended complaint alleged that a nuisance arose from, among other things, flood lights in defendants’ backyard that shined light onto plaintiff’s property at night. According to plaintiff, the lights constituted a “substantial, intentional and unreasonable interference” with his property rights. In support of that part of their motion seeking summary judgment, defendants acknowledged that they installed motion-activated security lights in their backyard but contended in a conclusory fashion that the lights do not “amount to nuisance to a reasonable person.” Defendants did not identify where on their property the lights are stationed, nor did they dispute that they shined light onto plaintiff’s property. Thus, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the lights did not constitute a nuisance. Marrano v Dusza, 2025 NY Slip Op 05592, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Lights which shine into a neighbor’s property can constitute a private nuisance.

 

/ , ,

THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO PENAL LAW 265.09 (2) DID NOT APPLY TO FIVE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; THE APPEAL OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined several of the additional consecutive five-year sentences pursuant to Penal Law 265.09( 2) were illegal. The court noted that preservation is not required for the appeal of an illegal sentence:

… [Penal Law 265.09(2)] provides in relevant part that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, when a person is convicted of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree as defined in [Penal Law § 265.09 (1)], the court shall impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years to the sentence imposed on the underlying class B violent felony offense where the person convicted of such crime displays a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious injury may be discharged, in furtherance of the commission of such crime” … . …

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 2… and robbery in the first degree under count 5 … . Given that the use or display of a firearm is an element of each of those crimes and “the use or display of that same firearm cannot also be the predicate for criminal [use] of a firearm in the first degree” … , neither of those crimes may serve as “the underlying class B violent felony offense” upon which the court could impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years … .

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 3… . * * * Defendant’s conviction under Penal Law § 265.09 (1) (a) “did not involve the display of a loaded, operable weapon” … , and the victim—the only person other than defendant who was present in the room where the shooting occurred—had no recollection of defendant’s entry into the apartment or of the events that transpired during the shooting that caused his physical injuries … . People v Clea, 2025 NY Slip Op 05590, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the five-year consecutive-sentence enhancement for display of a fireman is not allowed by Penal Law 265.09 (2).

 

/ , ,

THE SEARCH OF THE UNCONSCIOUS OR SLEEPING DEFENDANT’S POCKETS WAS NOT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST OR A SEARCH PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE SEIZED COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the drug-possession indictment, determined the police officer’s search of defendant’s pocket while he was unconscious was not a valid search incident to arrest a was not justified under the Mental Hygiene Law. The police entered the apartment with the tenant’s permission to search for a person for whom they had an arrest warrant. The tenant told the police the defendant had the same first name as the name on the warrant but that defendant was not the person they were looking for. Defendant was sitting at the kitchen table either unconscious or asleep. When the police officer couldn’t wake the defendant up, the officer searched his pockets and found cocaine:

The officers called an ambulance for defendant, but when the ambulance arrived, the medical personnel were able to wake defendant and determined that he did not need medical care. During his testimony at the suppression hearing, the officer asserted that Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 permitted him to search defendant inasmuch as he was planning to call an ambulance to transport defendant. The suppression court determined that the officer’s search of defendant’s person was justified by Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 and that the search was analogous to a search incident to arrest.

… The People correctly concede that the officer did not believe that defendant had committed a crime before he searched defendant’s pockets, and thus the search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest … . … [W]e cannot conclude that the police officer was acting pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 because, contrary to the People’s assertion, there was insufficient evidence that defendant was in danger of harming himself or others … . People v Ruise, 2025 NY Slip Op 05589, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: For a warrantless search of a person to be justified under the Mental Hygiene Law there must be evidence the defendant is in danger of harming himself or others.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A DEFECTIVELY MAINTAINED AND/OR INSTALLED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALLOWED A SIGNAL HEAD IN EACH DIRECTION TO SHOW A GREEN LIGHT, THEREBY CAUSING THE INTERSECTION COLLISION; ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THE PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE “FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE INTERSECTION IN A SAFE CONDITION” AND “CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION” CAUSES OF ACTION, AND THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined the complaint and bill of particulars sufficiently alleged negligence and questions of fact were raised about whether the county failed to properly maintain a traffic signal and created a dangerous condition. The plaintiff alleged a pipe holding the traffic signal broke allowing it to rotate 90 degrees such that at least one of the signal heads in each direction showed a green light, causing the intersection collision. The fact that the county demonstrated it did not have notice of the defective traffic signal did not affect the viability of the “failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition” and the “creation of a dangerous condition” causes of action:

“A municipality has a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[T]he municipality breaches such duty if it permits a dangerous or potentially dangerous condition to exist and cause injury” … . Here, to meet its burden on that part of the motion seeking summary judgment, defendant was required to “demonstrate that it maintained the intersection in a reasonably safe condition and that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of same” … .

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of his expert … . We also agree with plaintiff that questions of fact exist with respect to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here … . Duncan v Town of Greece, 2025 NY Slip Op 05588, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: The municipality’s lack of notice of a dangerous condition, here an allegedly defective traffic signal, does not affect the viability of causes of action alleging the failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition and/or the municipality’s creation of the dangerous condition.​

 

/ ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSES OF CLAIMANT’S HEARING LOSS DID NOT SUPPORT THE MEDICAL EXPERTS’ CONCLUSIONS THAT THE LOSS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OPERATION OF HEAVY MACHINERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the conflicting evidence of the causes of claimant’s hearing loss did not support the experts’ conclusions that the hearing loss was “likely” caused by exposure to noise from the operation of heavy equipment:

… [T]he medical opinion evidence on the issue of causation need not be expressed with certainty or in absolute terms … , and we acknowledge that the Board is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh conflicting medical opinions and to evaluate the medical evidence before it … . That said, the medical opinions upon which the Board bases its finding of a causal relationship nonetheless must be supported by a rational basis … . Here, each of the foregoing physicians indeed expressed that it was “likely or “very obvious” that claimant’s hearing loss was attributable to work-related noise exposure. However, given the other documented sources of noise exposure … , the conflicting medical histories provided by claimant and, most notably, the testimony of the carrier’s consultant, who made clear that the results of claimant’s audiograms were decidedly inconsistent with noise-related hearing loss, we are unable to conclude that these generalized statements of causation are otherwise supported by a rational basis in the record as a whole. Under these circumstances, the Board’s finding that claimant sustained a work-related binaural hearing loss is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Spada v Keeler Constr. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 05553, Third Dept 10-9-25

Practice Point: In the context of a hearing loss alleged to have been caused by prolonged exposure to noise from heavy machinery, the medical experts’ conclusions must be supported by evidence in the record. Here the experts’ conclusions that the hearing loss was attributable to the operation of heavy machinery were weakened by conflicting causation-evidence in the record and the finding of causation was reversed.

 

/ , , ,

WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN BE SUED BY A SHAREHOLDER FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT APART FROM A SUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the board of directors of a residential cooperative is not amenable to a lawsuit separate and apart from a suit against the cooperative. Here plaintiff shareholder sued the board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty after the dismissal of a similar suit against the directors individually:

New York trial courts have explicitly held that a board of directors is not an entity that may be sued separately from the corporation … . * * *

Applying the Business Corporation Law … , the residential cooperative board of defendant … is not an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued separate and apart from the corporation on whose behalf it acts. * * *

While a shareholder cannot assert allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against a board of directors, a shareholder may assert the claim against the individual directors … . Here, plaintiff originally brought breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against fourteen of the individual board members and the corporation … . Those causes of action were largely dismissed, and plaintiff may not simply replace those parties with “the board” to revive those now dismissed claims. Tahari v 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: This opinion clarifies the law. The board of directors of a corporation is not amenable to suit for breach of a fiduciary duty separate and apart from a suit against the corporation. However, individual members of the board of directors may be sued for breach of a fiduciary duty.

 

/ , , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county did not have immunity in this Child Victims Act lawsuit alleging negligent foster-care placement of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by her foster father in the late 70’s:

“The governmental function immunity defense provides immunity for the exercise of discretionary authority during the performance of a governmental function” … . “[T]he governmental function immunity defense cannot attach unless the municipal defendant establishes that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” … .

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant acts of the County’s employees relating to the alleged negligent supervision of the plaintiff’s foster care placement were discretionary and thus entitled to immunity … . … [E]ven if the acts at issue could potentially be considered discretionary, the County failed to demonstrate that the alleged discretion was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated … .

… Contrary to the County’s contention, it “was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care” … . M.W. v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Use this decision as a starting point for research into how governmental function immunity and immunity under the Social Services Law apply to a county foster-care placement. Here the court determined neither type of immunity applied in this Child Victims Act lawsuit.

 

/ , ,

IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined that the respondent town did not explain its failure to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals identified in response to the petitioner’s FOIL request and did not explain the reasons for redactions made in the records which were provided:

… Supreme Court erred in dismissing so much of the petition/complaint as sought, in effect, to compel the production of all responsive records or, in the alternative, to certify that the respondent does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search. The respondent does not dispute that it failed to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals that were identified in response to the petitioner’s request. The respondent did not claim a specific exemption to disclosure in denying the petitioner’s request for those determinations. Accordingly, the respondent was required to either produce those records or certify that it does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] …).

Supreme Court also erred by determining that the respondent’s redactions were permissible to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). In an administrative appeal of an agency’s denial of access to records, the agency is required to “fully explain in writing . . . the reasons for further denial” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a]). “[J]udicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency and the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, the respondent failed to respond to the petitioner’s administrative appeal, and failed to otherwise reference Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) as a justification for the redactions. To provide the respondent the benefit of justifications it did not advance in the first instance “contravenes Court of Appeals precedent ‘as well as the spirit and purpose of FOIL'” … . Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead, 2025 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Under FOIL (Public Officers Law) identified records must be produced unless an exemption is demonstrated to apply or the respondent certifies that the records could not be found after a diligent search. In addition, the reasons for any redactions in produced records must be explained. Here Supreme Court should not have dismissed aspects of the FOIL petition in the absence of these required responses by the town.

 

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