You are here: / THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE...

Search Results

/

THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE OBSTRUCTION OF PASSAGEWAYS; IT ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STORED AND SECURED (AND FALLS); PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been dismissed in this falling object case. Plaintiff was struck by a component of an unbuilt mail box which fell:

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1), which provides in relevant part that “[a]ll building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner. Material piles shall be stable under all conditions and so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … . Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the scope of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1) is not limited exclusively to obstructed thoroughfares … . Rather, the plain text of the regulation creates three distinct obligations and potential sources of liability: first, “[a]ll building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner”; second, “[m]aterial piles shall be stable under all conditions”; and third, “[m]aterial piles shall be . . . so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … . …

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that the mailbox component at issue qualifies as a “building material[]” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1), and we further agree with plaintiff that triable issues of fact exist regarding the “safe[ty] and orderl[iness]” of the “manner” in which defendants “stored” that “building material[].” Slowe v Lecesse Constr. Servs., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01887, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO HOLD A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge’s refusal to hold a Huntley hearing to determine the voluntariness of defendant’s statements until several witnesses testified at trial was reversible error:

“When [a] motion [to suppress evidence] is made before trial, the trial may not be commenced until determination of the motion” (CPL 710.40 [3] …). Here, defendant moved to suppress his statements to the police on the ground that they were involuntarily made (see CPL 710.20 [3]), but the court did not rule on the motion prior to trial and repeatedly refused to conduct a pretrial Huntley hearing, even after the People requested a Huntley hearing at the outset of the trial. Instead, the court granted the People’s request for a Huntley hearing over defendant’s objection after nine of the ten prosecution witnesses had already testified. Following that hearing, the court found the statements to be voluntary and thus admissible.

The error is not harmless. It is well established that, “unless the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming, there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” … . Here, the evidence was not overwhelming … . The central factual question in this case was identity. The evidence of identity was that defendant was apprehended coming out of a building located on the block towards which the culprit had been seen running, he fit the description of the culprit, and he was identified by three eyewitnesses after a showup procedure. On the other hand, defendant did not have in his possession the fruits of the crime or the firearm used in the crime, nor was he dressed like the culprit. Moreover, showup identification procedures are inherently suggestive … , and the culprit had been wearing a partial face covering at the time of the crime, which further undermined the reliability of the identifications … . People v Coffie, 2021 NY Slip Op 01884, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY MURDER, TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED PRIMARILY ON HIS CONFESSION; THE ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED MINIMAL INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL; COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST THE REDACTION OF DEFENDANT’S VIDEO STATEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, dismissing the robbery counts, and ordering a new trial on the murder and criminal possession of a weapon counts, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined: (1) conviction of felony murder based upon a confession requires only corroboration of the murder, not the underlying felony (robbery here); (2) the convictions on the two robbery counts were against the weight of the evidence; (3) the judge did not conduct the required “minimal inquiry” when defendant made specific factual complaints about his counsel and asked for new counsel–the error was not cured by the appointment of new counsel right before trial; and (4) defendant’s counsel were ineffective because defendant’s video statement was not redacted to remove reference to defendant’s history of incarceration. The legal discussions are too detailed to fairly summarize here. The facts are:

On October 14, 2013, the victim stumbled home, a fatal knife wound in his back. He was pronounced dead that evening. Two days later, the police interviewed defendant, who provided a video-recorded statement. Defendant admitted that, on the evening of the crime, he was on South Salina Street in the City of Syracuse with three other young men—a cousin of his, a juvenile, and Tony Comer, Jr.—when the victim approached them for the purpose of buying drugs. Comer used the promise of drugs to lure the victim into a cut in the roadway and steal his wallet. When Comer and the victim came out of the cut, the victim was shirtless. Comer was smiling, holding the victim’s torn, white T-shirt. The victim left, shouting that he would come back with a gun and start shooting. Comer told the others that the victim still had $10 on his person, and the juvenile stated that he wanted the victim’s last $10. About 10 or 15 minutes later, the victim returned wearing a sweatshirt, looking for his wallet. Defendant, his cousin, and the juvenile fought the victim. Defendant admitted that, by fighting the victim, he was helping the juvenile to acquire the victim’s last $10 and that, during the fight, defendant stabbed the victim once in the back using a knife that he had concealed in his sleeve. People v Stackhouse, 2021 NY Slip Op 01883, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS RELATING TO THE CODEFENDANT’S POSSESSION AND FIRING OF A WEAPON DURING A ROBBERY AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT WERE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED UPON THE CODEFENDANT’S GETTING INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WITH THE WEAPON WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment (stemming from a robbery by the codefendant) was legally insufficient, and the conviction of another possession of a weapon charge (stemming from the codefendant’s getting into defendant’s car after the robbery) was against the weight of the evidence. Shots were fired by the codefendant during the robbery. The defendant was not with the codefendant during the robbery. Then the codefendant, still in possession of the firearm, got into defendant’s car which was parked a couple of blocks away from the robbery scene and defendant drove away with the codefendant. There was no evidence the defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to commit the robbery:

… [T]here is no evidence that defendant and the codefendant were together earlier on the day of the robbery and shooting, no evidence that defendant had prior knowledge either that the codefendant would be armed that day or that he was intending to rob someone, and no evidence that defendant and the codefendant had an ongoing relationship … . * * *

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant had any knowledge of the codefendant’s possession of a firearm prior to the shooting or that defendant somehow “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided [the codefendant] to engage in” the reckless shooting at the vehicle in which the victim was riding … . * * *

… [A]lthough the evidence that defendant knew who the codefendant was prior to the robbery provides a rational basis for questioning defendant’s credibility, we conclude … that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, finding himself in the presence of a man with a loaded weapon, willingly “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided” the codefendant’s possession of that weapon … , or that defendant “shared a ‘community of purpose’ with [the codefendant]” … . People v Hawkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY WHICH OF TWO UNDERLYING OFFENSES IT DESCRIBED AND DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and the waiver of indictment, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it was not clear which of two charged rapes it referred to and there was no language that the plea would be in full satisfaction of all charges:

… [T]he underlying felony complaint alleged four offenses predicated on defendant’s purported violation of three Penal Law provisions: two separate acts of rape in the first degree that occurred in September and October 2016, respectively (Penal Law § 130.35 [4]), an act of criminal sexual act in the first degree that occurred in November 2016 (§ 130.50 [4]), and acts that constituted endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). In contrast, the waiver of indictment listed only a single count to be charged in the SCI [superior court information]: a count of rape in the first degree that allegedly occurred sometime between July and November 2016. Inasmuch as the sole charge in the waiver of indictment and SCI could plausibly refer to either of the acts of rape in the first degree alleged in the felony complaint, the waiver of indictment failed to put defendant on notice of the precise crime for which he was waiving prosecution by indictment and was thus jurisdictionally defective. …

In addition to impeding defendant’s ability to prepare a defense … , the defect in the waiver of indictment—i.e., the indeterminancy of the precise rape offense for which defendant was agreeing to waive indictment—implicates double jeopardy concerns because there was no language in the waiver form, SCI, or at the plea colloquy informing defendant that his plea to one count of rape in the first degree would be in full satisfaction of the offenses alleged in the felony complaint. Consequently, defendant could potentially be subjected to a subsequent prosecution for the offenses not identified in the waiver of indictment or charged in the SCI … . People v Meeks, 2021 NY Slip Op 01925, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the appellate division because there was a quasi-judicial hearing before an administrative law judge at which evidence was taken. The court noted that the aspect of the underlying action which sought a declaratory judgment could not be transferred to the appellate division:

… [A]lthough petitioner also contends that she is entitled to declaratory relief, we do not “have jurisdiction to consider the declaratory judgment action as part of this otherwise properly transferred CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . The transfer of a declaratory judgment action to this Court is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g) … and we “lack[] jurisdiction to consider a declaratory judgment action in the absence of a proper appeal from a court order or judgment” … . We therefore vacate the order insofar as it transferred the declaratory judgment action, sever the declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding, and remit the declaratory judgment action to Supreme Court for further proceedings … . Matter of Blue v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 01924, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ ,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WHEN AN OFFICER ENTERED THE VEHICLE TO RETRIEVE THE REGISTRATION AND SAW A HANDGUN; THE DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEIZURE BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE’S RELIANCE ON THE STATUTORY AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION; THE HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the handgun seized from the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger should have been suppressed. The police arrived after an accident and defendant was standing outside the car. When an officer asked for the vehicle registration, defendant offered to retrieve it, but a police officer standing near the car said he would retrieve it. The officer then saw a handgun that had been hidden from view by the deployed air bag. The court noted defendant had standing to contest the search and seizure because of the People’s reliance on the statutory automobile presumption:

As an initial matter, there is no dispute that defendant has standing as a passenger of the vehicle to challenge its search by virtue of the People’s reliance on the statutory automobile presumption … . … [U]nder the circumstances of this case, we agree with defendant that the officer who conducted the search lacked probable cause to do so … . In reaching that conclusion, we reject the People’s assertion that, based on the holdings of People v Branigan (67 NY2d 860 [1986]) and People v Philbert (270 AD2d 210 [1st Dept 2000] … ), the officer was entitled to enter the vehicle for the purpose of obtaining the vehicle’s registration certificate. Unlike in Branigan, there were no ” ‘safety reasons’ ” in this case preventing the officer from allowing defendant to retrieve the registration himself … . and, here, defendant did not initially fail to produce the registration when prompted to do so by law enforcement (cf. id. at 861-862). Unlike in Philbert … , the officer here, as he confirmed at the suppression hearing, lacked probable cause to search the vehicle and had no reason to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. People v Lawrence, 2021 NY Slip Op 01921, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ , ,

THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION (SLIP AND FALL) ACCRUED, EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS SERVED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT IS A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of claim served more than 90 after the slip and fall without leave of court was a nullity. The court further determined that the request for an order deeming the notice of claim timely served made more than one year and 90 days after the slip and fall could not be authorized by the court, even where the summons and complaint was served within that time period:

It is well settled that an “application for the extension [of time within which to serve a notice of claim] may be made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute has been tolled” .. . Where that time expires before the application for an extension is made, “the court lack[s] the power to authorize late filing of the notice [of claim]” … .

Here, we conclude that “[p]laintiff’s service of the summons and complaint within the limitations period does not excuse the failure to serve a notice of claim within that period,” and we further conclude that “plaintiff’s earlier service of a notice of claim is a nullity inasmuch as the notice of claim was served more than 90 days after the accident but before leave to serve a late notice of claim was granted” … . Thus, because plaintiff’s cross motion seeking an order deeming her notice of claim to be timely filed “was made after the expiration of the maximum period permitted” for seeking such relief, i.e., one year and 90 days, Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross motion, granted defendant’s motion, and dismissed the complaint … . Bennett v City of Buffalo Parks & Recreation, 2021 NY Slip Op 01920, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ ,

EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS OFTEN ABSENT FROM SCHOOL WARRANTED A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for modification of custody should not have been dismissed without holding a hearing. There was evidence the child, now in third grade, was often absent from school:

In seeking to modify the stipulated custody order, the father was required to show “a change in circumstances ‘since the time of the stipulation’ ” … . Here, the father and respondent mother entered into the stipulated order shortly after the child’s fifth birthday, before she would have entered kindergarten. At the hearing on the petition, the court received the child’s third-grade school attendance records in evidence. Although we cannot discern the precise number of absences from our review of the appellate record, the court expressed that it was “concerned” with the number of absences up to that point in the school year, of which there were approximately 30. Thus, we conclude that the father established a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the child because the child’s school records demonstrate that she had excessive school absences in the third grade … . Therefore, we reverse the order, reinstate the petition, and remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing on the best interests of the child … . Matter of Myers v Myers, 2021 NY Slip Op 01916, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

/ , , , , ,

FUNDS FOR PERSONAL CARE SERVICES ARE MEDICAID FUNDS SUBJECT TO THE AUDIT AND RECOUPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP)..

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined funds paid for personal care were Medicaid funds which were subject to the audit and recoupment authority of the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA). The facts are explained in the Appellate Division decision:

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below (Matter of People Care Inc. v City of New York, 175 AD3d 134, 147-152 [1st Dept 2020] [Richter, J.P., dissenting]), we conclude that the funds for personal care services paid to petitioner People Care, Inc. under the Health Care Reform Act (Public Health Law §§ 2807-v [1] [bb] [i], [iii]) are Medicaid funds subject to the audit and recoupment authority of the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA) in accordance with the parties’ 2001 contract. Matter of People Care Inc. v City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin., 2021 NY Slip Op 01834, CtApp 3-25-21

 

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