You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CONFESSING TO THE MURDER FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the statement against penal interest made by a witness in a post-trial CPL article 440 hearing should have been admitted at trial. The witness essentially confessed to the shooting for which defendant was convicted. At the time of the trial, the witness was unavailable because he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge excluded the statement against penal interest on the ground that circumstances independent of the statement itself did not support the statement’s truthfulness and reliability :

… [W]e conclude, based on the circumstances of the witness’s CPL article 440 testimony and the trial record, from which that testimony was absent, that “there is ‘a reasonable possibility that the [testimony] might be true’ ” … . Initially, the witness’s description of the third party shooting at the window from the backyard when the light went on is consistent with the female victim’s testimony that she was shot immediately after she turned on the light and the physical evidence that the shots were fired through the rear window. The witness testified that the third party picked up a .38 firearm, which is consistent with the projectiles recovered from the shooting, from a nearby location just prior to the shooting. The witness’s description of running down the driveway with the third party immediately following the shots, across the street, and then over a backyard fence coincides with a female neighbor’s description in her trial testimony of two men jumping over her back fence. The testimony of a law enforcement witness also corroborated the witness’s account of the two prior robberies described by the witness during his CPL article 440 testimony. Further, there is no evidence that the witness had a familial or close relationship with defendant or other “obvious motive for [the witness] to falsely implicate himself” … .

In light of the more lenient standard applied to exculpatory statements, we conclude that the initial threshold of reliability is met, i.e., that there is a “reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01881, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for admission of a statement against penal interest.

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the hospital’s motion to strike allegations of lack of informed consent should have been granted. That cause of action was not identified in the complaint. Therefore plaintiffs could not use their bill of particulars to assert it:

We agree with the Hospital defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking, in effect, to strike the allegations of lack of informed consent from plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars to the Hospital defendants, and we modify the order accordingly. “[A] bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized . . . A bill of particulars may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . For those purposes, “[l]ack of informed consent is a distinct theory of medical malpractice liability rooted in a specific professional duty to reasonably inform and obtain consent from the patient,” and claims for traditional medical malpractice and lack of informed consent ” ‘comprise[ ] different elements’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he complaint is based solely on [traditional] medical malpractice and does not contain a separate cause of action for lack of informed consent” … and that a review of the allegations in the complaint does not support the conclusion that the distinct theory of lack of informed consent was ” ‘sufficiently pleaded to avoid surprise and prejudice to [the Hospital] defendants’ ” … . Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ complaint does not presently plead a cause of action for lack of informed consent, the allegations in plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars relating to lack of informed consent must be stricken … . Heather J. v Rochester Regional Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 01880, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Here the complaint did not allege a cause of action for lack of informed consent. Therefore references to lack of informed consent in the bill of particulars can be stricken.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS 33 YEARS OLD AND THE JURY OBSERVED HIM, THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVE HE WAS OVER 18 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIMES REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS; THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual act first degree, determined that, although defendant was in fact 33 years old, the People failed to prove that he was over 18 at the time of the crimes. The errors was not preserved. The appellate court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to consider the issue:

Here, two counts in the indictment include an age element that required the People to establish that defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the crimes in June 2020 … . Defendant was in fact 33 years old in June 2020, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during the trial in 2021, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of predatory sexual assault against a child under count 1 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the first degree under count 5 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: If being over 18 at the time of the crime is an element of the offense, the People must prove that element. Here the defendant was 33, but the failure to prove he was over 18 was reversible error. This error will be considered by an appellate court even where it has not been preserved for appeal.​

 

,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS UNILATERALLY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have allowed the defendant and the codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges to jurors unilaterally:

… County Court erred in permitting the codefendant to unilaterally exercise peremptory challenges. … The court’s process of allowing defendant and codefendant to each unilaterally exercise their shared peremptory challenges was in violation of CPL 270.25 former (3) and resulted in defendant and codefendant exhausting their shared peremptory challenges before all jurors were selected … . A court’s mistaken denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal” … . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01874, Fourth Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: The court should not have allowed defendant and codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges unilaterally.​

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department. suppressing evidence seized upon defendant’s arrest and dismissing the indictment. over a two-justice dissent, determined that the police did not have particularized information which justified approaching defendant’s car which was parked near an apartment complex. There was a “trespass affidavit” by an apartment property manager on file with the police department which requested that any person who was not a tenant be arrested for trespass. The police approached defendant, who, it turned out, was a tenant. But based on an officer’s observation of a bag containing a tan substance inside the car, the officers ordered defendant out the car, searched the defendant’s person and car, and seized cocaine and a handgun:

… [T]he officer’s testimony that the apartment complex was in a high-crime area did not justify approaching defendant. The trespass affidavit failed to afford the officers any more particularized reason for approaching defendant. Therein, although the property manager for the apartment complex stated generally that there “was reason to believe that persons are congregating on the . . . property . . . [who] do not reside at said property,” there was no allegation in the trespass affidavit that the property was, for example, “plagued by illegal drug trade” or gang violence … . Indeed, the property manager did not specify any prior or ongoing incidents of criminal activity on the premises, but instead expressed a general belief that persons might be “congregating on the property,” which is a multi-building residential apartment complex, “without [the property manager’s] permission.” The property manager nonetheless also acknowledged in the trespass affidavit that non-residents were often permissibly on the property, such as guests of tenants. Thus, defendant was not “parked at an establishment around which criminal activity was known to occur” … . Further, the officers observed defendant momentary idling in a vehicle in a publicly accessible parking lot on a summer evening outside a residential apartment complex … , not “in a private space restricted by signage and a lock” … . Thus, nothing in the officers’ observation of defendant’s conduct, even considered in light of the assertions in the trespass affidavit, “provided a particularized reason to request information” … . People v Robinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01693, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: Here the police did not have a “particularized reason” for approaching defendant’s parked car near an apartment complex. The facts that (1) the defendant was parked in a high crime area and (2) an apartment-complex property manager had filed a “trespass affidavit” with the police was not enough to allow the police to approach the defendant to request information.

 

, ,

THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN ORDER MAKING SPECIAL FINDINGS TO ALLOW A JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) TO AVOID DEPORTATION TO GUATEMALA (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the petition for an order making special findings to allow a juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) such that the child can remain in the US and avoid deportation to Guatemala:

The child simultaneously moved for the issuance of an order making special findings that, among other things, the child’s reunification with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect, abandonment, or abuse, and it would not be in his best interests to be returned to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and last habitual residence. Although Surrogate’s Court granted the guardianship petition, following a subsequent hearing, the Surrogate issued the order on appeal denying the child’s motion for an order making the requisite declaration and special findings on the basis that the child presented “no credible testimony . . . of abuse, abandonment or neglect or that reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable.” * * *

… [T]he evidence established that the child is under the age of 21, unmarried, and a resident alien physically present in the United States and, inasmuch as the Surrogate appointed the child’s brother as his guardian, the child has been legally committed to or placed under the custody of an individual appointed by a juvenile court located in the United States within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J) (i) … .

… [W]e conclude that reunification of the child with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect (see generally Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). The record demonstrates that the child’s parents did not provide the child with medical care, even after he sustained a serious injury … , encouraged the child to drop out of school and work on the family farm at the age of 15 … , failed to protect the child from gang violence in Guatemala … . … [I]t would not be in the best interests of the child to return to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and country of last habitual residence … . Matter of Juarez, 2026 NY Slip Op 01686, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

 

, , ,

A HOSPITAL HAS A DUTY TO RETAIN AN INTOXICATED PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN ADMITTED INVOLUNTARILY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IF THE PATIENT IS INCAPACITATED TO A DEGREE THERE WAS A LIKELIHOOD OF HARM TO THE PATIENT OR OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital breached its duty to retain the decedent for emergency treatment because decedent was incapacitated by alcohol to a degree there was a likelihood of harm to decedent or others:

A hospital does not owe an intoxicated patient, who went to the hospital voluntarily, a duty to prevent that patient from leaving the hospital against medical advice even when that patient has been admitted to the hospital for medical treatment … . By contrast, however, the decedent here was admitted involuntarily (see Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 [e]). Defendant therefore had a duty to retain decedent for emergency treatment if decedent was incapacitated by alcohol or substances to such a degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, as those terms are defined under Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 … .

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that it did not breach its duty to ensure that decedent was no longer incapacitated to the degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact. Plaintiff’s expert opined that, under the circumstances and “especially in such proximity to the events that occurred in the hospital in the hours prior to discharge,” it was a breach of the standard of care to allow decedent to be discharged … . Guadagno v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01698, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: A hospital has a duty to retain an intoxicated patient who has been admitted involuntarily if the patient is incapacitated to a degree there is a likelihood of harm to the patient or others. That duty is not triggered by an intoxicated patient who went to the hospital voluntarily.

 

, , ,

SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BASED UPON A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE FOR AN “ABNORMALITY THAT DECREASES THE ABILITY TO CONTROL IMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level assessment from three to two determined (1) the court should not have based a 10-point assessment on a juvenile delinquency adjudication and (2) the evidence did not demonstrate defendant suffered from an abnormality that decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior:

Defendant was assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 for his age at the time of his first sex crime based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication when he was 15 years old, and the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under that risk factor. We have repeatedly held, however, that a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination … . * * *

Defendant also contends that the court erred when it,… adjudicated him a level three risk through application of an automatic override based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … . We agree. It is well settled that “[t]he People bear the burden of proving the applicability of a particular override by clear and convincing evidence” … . … While the record supports the conclusion that defendant suffered from mental illness and that he exhibited impulsive behavior, there was no clinical assessment in the record establishing that his mental illness decreased his ability to control his behavior. Of note, neither the People nor the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders requested that the court apply the automatic override here and, further, defendant never had the opportunity to oppose use of the override before the court decided to apply it. People v Singleton, 2026 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: A court cannot assess SORA risk-level points based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence required to apply an automatic override in a SORA risk-assessment proceeding based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … .

 

, ,

GRANDMOTHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” SUCH THAT SHE HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT.).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined that grandmother had demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” and she therefore had standing to bring a custody petition:

The evidence here established that, in 2018, the father was arrested and incarcerated until 2022. During that time, the children resided with the mother in the grandmother’s home until October 2021, when the grandmother moved out. The father never saw the children while he was incarcerated, rarely spoke with them, and never sent them cards, letters, or gifts. When the father was released from incarceration, the mother asked him to take custody of the children, which he did starting in July or August 2022; the grandmother visited with the children on the weekends. The mother died less than a year later, and the children lived with the grandmother during the summer of 2023. In September 2023, the parties filed petitions seeking custody of the children, and the court granted the grandmother temporary custody of the children, with the father having visitation. From that time until the conclusion of the hearing in July 2024, the father did not visit with the children and rarely communicated with them.

We conclude that the cumulative effect of the father’s extended incarceration, his failure to maintain contact with the children during that time, the children’s resulting bond with the grandmother, and the father’s failure to maintain contact with the children during the pendency of the hearing, is sufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Craig v Thomas, 2026 NY Slip Op 00751, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of “extraordinary circumstances” which will confer standing upon a grandparent to seek custody of the grandchildren.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT ABSENT A WRITTEN MOTION OR A WAIVER BY THE PEOPLE; THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE INTENT DUE TO MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; ONLY A JURY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this aggravated cruelty to animals case, determined (1) the judge should not have reduced the counts in the indictment absent a written motion and (2) the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment. Defendant put three kittens in a knotted pillowcase left them on a balcony during a snow storm. They were discovered under several feet of snow. Two of the kittens died. The judge apparently concluded the defendant, due to mental disease of defect, was not capable of forming the intent to commit the offense. The Fourth Department noted that only a jury can make that determination:

… County Court erred in reducing the counts without a written motion requesting such relief. “A motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to [CPL] 210.20 must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people” (CPL 210.45 [1] …). “The procedural requirements of CPL 210.45 must be adhered to even when consideration of the dismissal is upon the court’s own motion” … . Unless those requirements have been waived by the People, “[t]he failure . . . to comply with the statutory mandates requires a reversal” … . * * *

We conclude that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that defendant, with no justifiable purpose, intentionally killed the kittens and that defendant did so with aggravated cruelty inasmuch as defendant killed the kittens in a manner that inflicted extreme pain on the dying animals … or did so in a manner likely to prolong the animals’ suffering … .

To the extent that the court reduced the counts on its own finding that defendant could not form the requisite intent, that was improper weighing of the evidence inasmuch as “consideration of a potential defense of mental disease or defect should rest exclusively with the petit jury” … . People v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 00738, Fourth Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: A judge cannot on the court’s own motion reduce counts of an indictment. There must be a written motion absent a waiver by the People.

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, find that defendant could not form the required intent to commit the charged offense due to mental disease or defect. Only a jury can make that determination.

 

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