You are here: / AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, ASKING DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR AND...

Search Results

/ ,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, ASKING DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR AND PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID “SAFETY REASONS” CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL DETENTION WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, determined the statements were the fruit of an unlawful detention at a traffic stop. A two-justice dissent argued the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the police had probable cause to arrest, and, therefore, a hearing should be held to determine whether the spontaneous statements made by the defendant at the police station were the fruit of the poisonous tree:

The Troopers … directed the driver and defendant to exit the vehicle so the Troopers could conduct an inventory search. Pursuant to standard procedure, the driver and defendant were placed in handcuffs. No other basis for placing the driver and defendant in handcuffs was offered by the People, and at the suppression hearing one of the Troopers testified that, in the City of Rochester, “for our safety reasons, every single time we have somebody exit the vehicle, we put them in handcuffs.” Before the inventory search was conducted, the vehicle’s driver began acting nervous, and when one of the Troopers inquired about her behavior, the driver stated that there was a gun in a bag in the vehicle. The Troopers retrieved and searched the bag, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant and the driver were then arrested and taken to the State Police station for processing, where defendant began talking to one of the Troopers and made spontaneous statements indicating that the gun belonged to him. * * *

We agree with defendant that by placing him in handcuffs after directing him to exit the vehicle, the Troopers transformed the traffic stop into a “forcible stop and detention” … , which “must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct . . . ; a need to transport the defendant for a showup procedure . . . ; a fear that the suspect may interfere with the execution of a search warrant . . . ; or a concern for officer safety” … . The People did not present evidence at the suppression hearing of ” ‘articulable facts’ from the encounter to establish reasonable suspicion that defendant posed any danger to the officers” … .

From the dissent:

As the majority concludes, two New York State Troopers unlawfully detained defendant in handcuffs following the traffic stop. At the time, the Troopers had no reason to believe that either defendant or the driver had committed a crime. But the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the driver informed the Troopers that there was a gun in the vehicle, thus providing the Troopers with probable cause to arrest both the driver and defendant for criminal possession of a weapon. Thus, at the time he made his statements, defendant was lawfully under arrest. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 04315, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Apparently the State Police consider the City of Rochester a high crime area and it is standard procedure for them, after a traffic stop in the city, to place the occupants of the car in handcuffs for “safety reasons.” The Fourth Department held that standard procedure constitutes an illegal detention.

 

/ , ,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE TOWN DEFENDANTS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE EITHER THAT THEY WERE NOT NEGLIGENT OR THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; BY FOCUSING ONLY ON PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE TOWN DEFENDANTS EFFECTIVELY ASSUMED THEY WERE NEGLIGENT; THE EVIDENCE THE DRIVER OF THE TOWN DUMP TRUCK WAS TRAVELING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TOWN’S FAVOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The town’s dump truck collied with a car which failed to yield the right–of-way at an intersection, veered into plaintiff’s decedent’s lane and collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s car. The town focused its argument on proximate cause, contending that the car which failed to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident. But, to be entitled to summary judgment in this context, the defendant must demonstrate it was not negligent. By focusing on proximate case, the town defendants “must assume, arguendo, that they were negligent:”

The Town defendants’ submissions established that LaRocca, who was driving a dump truck containing 10 tons of asphalt, did not adhere to an advisory traffic sign recommending that speed be reduced to 35 miles per hour prior to entering the intersection and further established that the tree line limited his view of cross traffic at the intersection. If a trier of fact were to determine that LaRocca’s speed was unreasonable under the existing conditions, the trier of fact could also conclude that LaRocca’s own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision … . * * *

By focusing on “sole proximate cause” in this common-law negligence action, the Town defendants overlook the fact that their burden on their motion was to establish “as a matter of law that [they were] not negligent or that, even if [they were] negligent, [their] negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . In other words, when moving for summary judgment in the negligence context and addressing only the issue of proximate cause, the Town defendants must effectively assume, arguendo, that they were negligent … . Inasmuch as the Town defendants did not do that here, we need not address their proximate cause argument. Gates v Simpson, 2025 NY Slip Op 04313, Fourth Dept 7-25-24

Practice Point: A defendant in a traffic accident case is entitled to summary judgment (1) if defendant was not negligent; or (2) even if defendant was negligent, defendant was not a proximate cause of the accident. In making a motion for summary judgment, if a defendant does not address defendant’s own negligence and focuses only on proximate cause, the defendant is “assuming” defendant was negligent.

 

/ ,

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the contract between plaintiff and defendants was a revenue purchase agreement, not a loan. Therefore defendants’ argument the agreement constituted a usurious loan was rejected. However, questions of fact about the extent of the damages precluded summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The concurring justices agreed the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but argued the analysis of the issue used by the majority, based upon a specific case, was wrong and suggested a different approach:

Under the agreement, plaintiff advanced a monetary amount to the entity defendants in exchange for 25% of the future revenues of their business, until the purchased amount, i.e., an agreed-upon amount that was greater than the advanced amount, was paid to plaintiff. There was no interest rate or payment schedule and no time period during which the purchased amount was to be collected by plaintiff. Indeed, the agreement specifically stated that it was not a loan and that the entity defendants were “not borrowing money from” plaintiff. The agreement contained a daily remittance amount, which constituted “a good faith estimate of” plaintiff’s share of the future revenue stream. The agreement also contained an acknowledgment from plaintiff that it was “entering this [a]greement knowing the risks that [the entity defendants’] business may slow down or fail, [that plaintiff] assumes these risks,” and that there would be no recourse for plaintiff in the event the entity defendants went bankrupt, went out of business, or experienced a slowdown in business, among other things. The agreement also contained two reconciliation provisions, whereby the daily remittance would be modified both retroactively and prospectively upon request and with proof of earned revenue amounts. * * *

In determining whether a transaction constitutes a loan, courts must determine whether the plaintiff ” ‘is absolutely entitled to repayment under all circumstances’ “; “[u]nless a principal sum advanced is repayable absolutely, the transaction is not a loan” … . “Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy” (… see Samson MCA LLC, 219 AD3d at 1128 …). Bridge Funding Cap LLC v SimonExpress Pizza, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04306, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the nature of a revenue purchase agreement, as opposed to a loan. The majority used a Second Department case to structure its analysis. The two-justice concurrence agreed with the majority that the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but suggested a different approach to the analysis.​

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSOLIDATED TWO INDICTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the convictions, determined Supreme Court properly consolidated two indictments. A comprehensive dissent disagreed:

… [T]he court properly exercised its discretion in granting consolidation pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b) because there is significant common evidence supporting both indictments. Most importantly, the same weapon was involved in the events underlying both indictments, and—indeed—is the critical piece of evidence supporting both … . * * *

… [T]he court properly exercised its discretion in granting consolidation of the indictments on the additional basis that they charged offenses that are “defined by the same or similar statutory provisions” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]). * * *

In opposing joinder, defendant failed to meet the statutory standard of showing that he had “a genuine need to refrain from testifying . . . [to] satisf[y] the court that the risk of prejudice is substantial” (CPL 200.20 [3] [b]). * * * …[D]efendant failed to demonstrate “that he had ‘both important testimony to give concerning one [offense] and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other’ ” … . People v Spinks, 2025 NY Slip Op 04303, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for consolidating two indictments, fleshed out by a comprehensive, detailed dissent.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ARGUING HIS ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR WAIVING AN INTERPRETER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent. determined County Court should have held a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant argued defense attorney’s waiver of an interpreter constituted ineffective assistance. Defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument on direct appeal had been rejected, but the motion to vacate properly raised the waiver of an interpreter as a new issue:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in its determination that defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 440.10 (2) (a) … . Although on direct appeal we rejected defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel … , we conclude that his present contentions are properly raised by way of a CPL 440.10 motion because they concern matters outside the record that was before us on his direct appeal … . Defendant’s motion contained sufficient evidence, including “sworn allegations . . by . . . defendant or by another person or persons” (CPL 440.30 [1] [a]), demonstrating that a hearing is necessary to determine whether trial counsel’s waiver of an interpreter for defendant adversely affected defendant’s right to meaningfully participate in his own defense … . Specifically, defendant submitted evidence that, although he was able to navigate conversational topics in English, he required the assistance of an interpreter when discussing more technical or esoteric topics and that he had in fact utilized the assistance of an interpreter at all but one court appearance prior to his trial counsel waiving such services for defendant just prior to trial. “Although the evidence in support of the motion does not ‘conclusively substantiate[ ] by unquestionable documentary proof’ that vacatur is required due to a violation of defendant’s right to [effective assistance of] counsel . . . , it is nonetheless suggestive of that fact” … . Defendant is therefore entitled to a hearing “on his entire claim of ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as such a claim constitutes a single, unified claim that must be assessed in totality” … . People v Anwar, 2025 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into when the court must conduct a hearing on a motion to vacate a conviction. The discussion is enriched by a two-justice dissent.

 

/ ,

THE PURPOSE AND REACH OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied and required the dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds:

… FAPA’s enactment amended numerous CPLR provisions as well as other statutes, including: CPLR 213 (4) (a), stating that “[i]n any action [upon a note or mortgage], if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the [note] at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated”; CPLR 203 (h), stating that “[o]nce a cause of action upon a [note or mortgage] has accrued, no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive, or reset the accrual thereof, or otherwise purport to effect a unilateral extension of the limitations period prescribed by law to commence an action and to interpose the claim”; CPLR 3217 (e), stating that “[i]n any action on [a note or mortgage], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim”; and CPLR 205-a (a), prohibiting the six-month period savings provision within which a plaintiff may recommence an action if the original action was terminated due to any form of neglect.

Having determined that FAPA applies to this foreclosure action and turning to the merits underlying defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations, plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated pursuant to CPLR 213 (4), since the 2015 action was dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and was not dismissed based upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Vesely, 2025 NY Slip Op 04279, Third Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of the purpose and reach of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA).

 

/ ,

THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action based upon a fall from a height of 10.5 to 20 inches. The court noted that, despite caselaw holding that a fall of 12 inches did not trigger the statute, there is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard. Plaintiff was standing on a stack of pallets to operate a masonry saw when a plank broke and he fell:

The fact that plaintiff fell from a height of approximately 10 ½ to 20 inches is not a bar to summary judgment because the height differential is not, as a matter of law, de minimis. While this Court has previously held that a height differential of at most 12 inches above the floor was insufficient to find an elevation-related risk … , the jurisprudence of this Court has since evolved, recently reiterating that “[t]here is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . We have repeatedly found violations of Labor Law § 240(1) predicated upon falls from similar heights as the one at bar (see Ferguson v Durst Pyramid, LLC, 178 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2019] [fall from inverted bucket]; see also Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [fall from temporary two-step wooden staircase]; Brown, 137 AD3d at 703-704 [fall through an opening in latticework rebar deck to plywood 12 to 18 inches below]; Arrasti, 60 AD3d at 583 [fall from ramp to the floor 18 inches below]; Haskins, 227 AD3d at 409 [fall into hole 2 to 2 ½ feet deep]). Furthermore, here, the senior superintendent of defendant Tishman Construction Corporation of New York admitted that the makeshift pallet structure was an “improper work platform” that was “against the most basic safety rules.” Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04298, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: There is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard which will trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here a fall of between 10.5 and 20 inches from a stack of pallets warranted summary judgment.

 

/ , , , ,

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, considering the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined the court did not have the authority under the Family Court Act to order the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to supervise a so-called “nonrespondent” mother who had been abused by respondent father in the presence of the 14-month-old child. By all accounts mother was “a good mother” and “very strong [and] hard-working.” Yet over the course of six months mother was subjected to 15 announced and unannounced home visits by an ACS caseworker who searched every room, the contents of the refrigerator, and inspected the child’s body:

As noted by the Sapphire W. Court [237 AD3d 41, Second Dept, 2-5-25] “in 2015, the Legislature enacted sweeping legislation that amended various statutes, including Family Court Act § 1017, in order to provide nonrespondent parents with greater participation in abuse or neglect proceedings, while also expand[ing] the options available to Family Court judges when craft[ing] appropriate orders respecting the rights of non-respondent parents [and] assuring the safety and well being of children who are the subjects of the proceedings . . . . Among other things, the legislation clarifie[d] the language of Family Court Act § 1017 by referring specifically to non-respondent parent, relative or suitable person as potential resources a court may consider after determining that a child must be removed from his or her home” … .

We agree with the sound reasoning in Matter of Sapphire W. and hold that Family Court Act §§ 1017 and 1027(d) do not permit supervision of a nonrespondent parent who has been caring for the child, in the absence of a court-ordered removal of the child. We further concur with the Second Department that, “[c]onsidering the intrusive and potentially traumatic impact of ACS involvement in a family’s life, the disproportionate involvement of Black and Hispanic children in the child welfare system cannot be ignored” … . Matter of R.A. (A.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04295, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: The Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS’) authority to supervise a nonrespondent mother who was abused by respondent father in the child’s presence is only triggered if and when the court orders the removal of the child from the home, not the case here. All agreed mother was “a good mother,” yet she was subjected to 15 announced and unannounced searches of her home and inspections of her child over the course of six months.

 

/ ,

FILING A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION CONSTITUTED TAKING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed as abandoned on the ground plaintiff failed to take action within one year of defendant’s default. In fact plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention which constituted taking “proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default:”

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” To avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default” … . “Rather, ‘as long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal'” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated that, within one year after the defendant’s default, the plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention that sought a foreclosure settlement conference as mandated by CPLR 3408. “Where, as here, a settlement conference is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a default judgment (see CPLR 3408[a], [m]), a formal judicial request for such a conference in connection with an ongoing demand for the ultimate relief sought in the complaint constitutes ‘proceedings for entry of judgment’ within the meaning of CPLR 3215(c)” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Newson, 2025 NY Slip Op 04269, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: The CPLR does not require a plaintiff to obtain a default judgment within a year of the default to preclude dismissal. Plaintiff need only take some action which indicates it does not intend to abandon the action. Here the filing of a request for judicial intervention was sufficient.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF, A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED STUDENT, WAS KNOCKED OVER BY ANOTHER STUDENT; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAS A DUTY TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE ITS STUDENTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL (THE YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC.) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant in this negligent supervision case. Plaintiff, a developmentally disable adult and a member of defendant Young Adult Institute, Inc. (YAI) was knocked over in a parking lot by a fellow student:

Programs such as YAI that provide services to developmentally disabled adults have a duty to adequately supervise such students in their care, “and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “‘[I]n determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated'” … . “‘Even if a breach of the duty of supervision is established, it must [also] be demonstrated that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained'” … . “‘The test for causation is whether under all the circumstances the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence'” … . Sclafani v Young Adult Inst., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04266, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: ​A provider of services to developmentally disabled adults has a duty to adequately supervise its students. Here there were questions of fact about whether supervision was adequate. Plaintiff student was knocked over by another student in a parking lot.

 

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