You are here: / DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN 1996, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED A LEVEL ONE, NOT LEVEL TWO, RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant, who was convicted of statutory rape (no force) in 1996, should have classified as a level one risk, not level two:

Defendant appeals from an order classifying him as a level two sex offender stemming from his 1996 conviction in Virginia for the statutory rape of a 14-year-old female “without the use of force.” Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the offense, which the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders characterized as an “isolated incident.” Defendant successfully completed both sex offender treatment and substance abuse treatment, and he has not been convicted of any other sex crime. Under these circumstances, we agree with defendant, in the exercise of our own discretion, that his presumptive level two classification overestimates his “dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . We therefore modify the order by determining that defendant is a level one risk … . People v Stevens, 2022 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the judgment, determined the judge erred by adopting a proposed decision drafted by counsel as the final determination of the case:

… [T]he court erred in adopting, almost verbatim, the proposed decision drafted by petitioners’ counsel as the final determination in this case … . “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [respondent] CME could or should have objected to the court’s error, we would exercise our discretion to correct that error notwithstanding CME’s failure to object. We therefore vacate the judgment in its entirety and remit the matter to Supreme Court for consideration and determination of any pending issue or motion. Bruckel v Town of Conesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 00580, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice, Public Health Law action should not have been granted. The defendant’s experts’ opinions were not supported by the submission of decedent’s medical records:

… [D]efendant’s experts proffered opinions about decedent’s care at the nursing home facility that were not based on facts in the record because defendant failed to submit any of decedent’s medical records, certified or otherwise, to support those opinions. Additionally, those opinions were not based on facts personally known to the experts. Thus, the experts’ affidavits are ” ‘speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation’ ” … . Ritts v Gowanda Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 00578, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS IN A TRENCH WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY THE BUCKET OF AN EXCAVATOR WHICH WAS ON THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH ABOVE HIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE USUAL AND ORDINARY DANGERS OF A CONSTRUCTION SITE AS OPPOSED TO A RISK CONTEMPLATED BY THE LABOR LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was in a trench when he was struck by the bucket of an excavator which was on the edge of the trench above him:

Plaintiffs’ own submissions created a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred … , specifically whether plaintiff was injured due to a risk contemplated by the statute or, alternatively, by ” ‘the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site’ ” … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion with respect to liability on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is premised upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (c) and 23-9.5 (a). The issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred precludes a determination as a matter of law whether either of those regulations were violated … . Malvestuto v Town of Lancaster, 2022 NY Slip Op 00577, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , ,

BECAUSE OF UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, DEFENDANT’S MICHIGAN CONVICTION WAS DEEMED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE” EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE;” STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the result, while admittedly unfair, is required by unambiguous statutory language. For predicate felony purposes, a Michigan conviction was deemed a “sexually violent offense,” even though the same conduct would not constitute a “sexually violent offense” if committed in New York:

A ” ‘[s]exually violent offender’ means a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense” (Correction Law § 168-a [7] [b]). A ” ‘[s]exually violent offense,’ ” among other things, is “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [New York] felony [enumerated in section 168-a (3) (a)] or conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (§ 168-a [3] [b] [emphasis added]). It is undisputed that defendant was convicted of a felony in Michigan “for which [he] is required to register as a sex offender in [that] jurisdiction” (id.). Defendant’s Michigan conviction thus constitutes a ” ‘[s]exually violent offense’ ” as defined by the second of the two disjunctive clauses that comprise section 168-a (3) (b). It follows that defendant was properly designated a sexually violent offender, even though he would not qualify as such had he committed the same conduct in New York … . People v Talluto, 2022 NY Slip Op 00575, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant may have pled guilty and accepted a 16-year sentence in Monroe County because he was already serving a 14-24 year sentence for another offense in Ontario County. Subsequently, on appeal, the Fourth Department reduced the Ontario County sentence to four years:

“The critical question is whether the removal or reduction of the preexisting sentence nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” … . Here, when defendant pleaded guilty in Monroe County, the court expressly informed him that the aggregate 16-year term of imprisonment would run concurrently with the aggregate 14-to-24-year term already imposed in Ontario County, and thus the plea would result in no or relatively little additional prison time … . Once the Ontario County sentence was reduced as a result of our determination on the prior appeal to a term of four years, defendant lost the benefit previously conferred by the concurrent nature of the Monroe County plea, and “we cannot say defendant would have accepted the plea bargain . . . had it not been for his [14-to-24]-year sentence in the [Ontario County] case, now reduced to [four years]” … . People v Ringrose, 2022 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT HOLE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PLYWOOD WHICH WAS COVERING THE HOLE; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell through a skylight hole while attempting to remove plywood which was covering the hole:

Plaintiff submitted his own deposition testimony, in which he testified that, at the time of his injury, he was removing the plywood covering of the skylight hole as part of his work of preparing to install the final roofing. Plaintiff further testified that, upon removing the plywood, he fell through the skylight hole, and he was given no safety device to protect him from falling. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plywood cover constituted a safety device … , we note that “the availability of a particular safety device will not shield an owner or general contractor from absolute liability if the device alone is not sufficient to provide safety without the use of additional precautionary devices or measures” … . While the plywood cover “may have provided proper protection when it was in place over the opening, . . . once it was removed plaintiff was exposed to an elevation-related risk which required additional precautionary measures or devices” … . Tanksley v LCO Bldg. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00567, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an employment contract between plaintiff and defendant, which included a covenant not to compete, was not entwined with the separate sales agreement in which defendant promised to pay $200,000 for plaintiff’s business. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the sales contract because defendant defaulted after making the first payment:

“Generally, breach of a related contract will not in the ordinary course defeat summary judgment on [a promissory] note[]” … . Nonetheless, that “rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined” and inseparable … . Whether two agreements are inextricably intertwined is a question of law for the court to decide because it involves a matter of contract interpretation … .

Here, the sales contract and employment agreement are not inextricably intertwined such that plaintiff’s purported breach of the noncompetition covenants in the latter constitute a defense to defendant’s default on the promissory note … . Saulsbury v Durfee, 2022 NY Slip Op 00566, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant demonstrated it did not create a dangerous condition in the street by a special use. Plaintiff alleged defendant created the dangerous condition by storing heavy materials in the street. Plaintiff alleged a steel beam fell on his foot from a forklift when the forklift struck a defect in the road (Simmons Avenue):

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property, unless the landowner or lessee has either affirmatively created the dangerous condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur through a special use, or violated a statute or ordinance expressly imposing liability on the landowner or lessee for a failure to maintain the abutting street” … . Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing, as relevant here, that “[it] neither owned nor made special use of [Simmons Avenue], and that [it] had no connection to the condition” that caused the accident … .

From the dissent:

In our view, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not make special use of Simmons Avenue or affirmatively create the defective condition on Simmons Avenue that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries. Beck v City of Niagara Falls, 2022 NY Slip Op 00563, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , ,

“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of “refusing a breath test,” explained that it is not a cognizable offense. The court noted that it was obligated to correct this fundamental error which cannot be waived, even though the issue was not briefed on appeal:

… [T]he purported traffic infraction to which defendant pleaded guilty under count two of the indictment—refusing the breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b)—is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00562, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

Same issue in People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 00568, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

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