You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HER DOG COULD ATTACK ANOTHER DOG AND IT WAS FORESEEABLE A DOG OWNER WOULD TRY TO SEPARATE THE DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should not have been granted. Defendant was aware that her dog might attack a small dog like plaintiff’s and it was foreseeable plaintiff would try to separate the dogs:

“Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” … . Thus, “an animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities” … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met her initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact to defeat that motion. Plaintiff submitted her own affidavit, wherein she stated that, after she was bitten, defendant told her that defendant “was aware of the risk that her dogs would attack small dogs.” It was “foreseeable that if [defendant’s dog] attacked another dog, someone would attempt to pull the dogs apart and be injured in the process” … . Modafferi v DiMatteo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08342, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR AN UPWARD MODIFICATION OF FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN FATHER’S EMPLOYMENT STATUS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, BUT THE MODIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE OF EMPLOYMENT, NOT THE DATE OF THE PETITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for an upward modification of father’s support obligation should have been granted in its entirety, i.e., retroactive to the date of the change in father’s employment status, not to the date of the petition:

The court erroneously concluded that the modification of child support could only be retroactive to the date petitioner filed the petition. Because it is undisputed that the father did not notify the Support Collection Unit of his change in employment status as required by the prior support order, the court had the authority to modify the child support payments retroactive to the date of his employment … . Matter of Oneida County Dept. of Social Servs. v Abu-Zamaq, 2019 NY Slip Op 08341, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY, NOT CONSECUTIVELY; ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively, noting that preservation of the error was not required:

… [T]he sentence is illegal insofar as County Court directed that the sentences imposed on the two counts charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the count charging assault in the second degree. We note that defendant’s contention does not require preservation … . The People had the burden of establishing that consecutive sentences were legal, i.e., that the crimes were committed through separate acts or omissions (… see generally Penal Law § 70.25 [2]), and they failed to meet that burden. With respect to the count charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b), “the People neither alleged nor proved that defendant’s possession [of the gun] was marked by an unlawful intent separate and distinct from his intent to shoot the victim[]” … . With respect to the count charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), there was no evidence presented at trial that defendant’s act of possessing a loaded firearm “was separate and distinct from” his act of shooting the victim … . People v Tripp, 2019 NY Slip Op 08339, Second Dept 11-15-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE ALLEGED DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the existence of a dangerous condition. whether the defect was trivial, and proximate cause in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff allegedly fell after stepping on a loose piece of asphalt from the driveway outside her apartment:

Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she “stepped on a piece of the driveway” that was “maybe the size of a tennis ball if you were to cut it in half and it was flat.” Plaintiff did not photograph or preserve the piece of asphalt that allegedly caused her to fall, however, and we conclude that her testimony created an issue of fact whether the alleged defect on the property was “trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was negligent in permitting a dangerous or defective condition to exist on the premises, she also “failed to establish as a matter of law that [defendant’s negligence] was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . …

… [Plaintiff ‘s own] deposition testimony that she “didn’t really pay attention” to the driveway or the surrounding area prior to the accident raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was a proximate cause of the accident inasmuch as she walked down the porch stairway onto uneven ground in the middle of the night without using due care … . Jackson v Rumpf, 2019 NY Slip Op 08291, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, ,

THE DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THEREFORE DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING; THE IN REM FORECLOSURE ACTION REMAINS VIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Carni, determined that the mortgage debt was not accelerated by a discharge in bankruptcy, therefore the statute of limitations was not triggered and an in rem foreclosure action remains viable:

… [O]nce a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt” … . “Where the acceleration . . . is made optional with the holder of the note and mortgage, some affirmative action must be taken evidencing the holder’s election to take advantage of the accelerating provision, and until such action has been taken the provision has no operation” … . Here, the mortgage provided plaintiff the option to accelerate the debt under certain circumstances, but did not state that the debt would be automatically accelerated if defendant obtained a discharge in bankruptcy.

We reject defendant’s contention that the discharge in bankruptcy automatically accelerated the debt and thus triggered the statute of limitations with respect to the entire debt … .

“[E]ven after the debtor’s personal obligations have been extinguished [by chapter 7 discharge], the mortgage holder still retains a right to payment in the form of its right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property,” and a bankruptcy proceeding does not “impair [the mortgage holder’s] right to commence an action against [the debtor] in rem to seek payment from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale” … . … [C]hapter 7 discharge removes the “mode of enforc[ement]” against the debtor in personam, but the obligation otherwise remains intact and does not impact an action in rem … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Fernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 08290, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THOSE ASPECTS OF THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE WAS NOT ABANDONED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering and future economic loss in this back-injury case was against the weight of the evidence. The motion to set aside those aspects of the verdict should have been granted. A new trial was ordered on those elements of damages. The dissenters argued the future economic law issue was abandoned on appeal:

… [T]he jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering is ” contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation’ ” … . Although the evidence at trial established that plaintiff was permitted to return to work with no restrictions, the evidence also established that the injuries she sustained in the accident severely affected her ability to perform the same sorts of tasks that she had performed with ease prior to the accident. Moreover, as noted, the parties’ experts agreed that the injury to plaintiff’s lumbar spine was caused by the accident, and plaintiff presented uncontroverted medical testimony at trial establishing that she continues to experience pain as a result of that injury … .

We also agree with plaintiff that the jury’s failure to award damages for future economic loss is against the weight of the evidence.  Initially, we disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the contention was abandoned on appeal … and conclude that plaintiff adequately raised that specific contention in her brief … . Mast v DeSimone, 2019 NY Slip Op 08288, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE NOT INCLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include the approximate time of the offense:

A written waiver of indictment must be executed in strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 195.20 … , which in relevant part provides that such a waiver shall contain the “approximate time . . . of each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” (CPL 195.20). The People correctly concede that the written waiver of indictment failed to contain the approximate time of each offense and, because strict compliance with CPL 195.20 is required, we agree with defendant that the waiver was defective … . Contrary to the People’s contention, even if we assume, arguendo, that we are able to read an SCI in conjunction with a written waiver of indictment in order to cure a defect therein, that would not cure the defect in the written waiver in this case because the SCI does not state the approximate time of each offense … . People v Laws, 2019 NY Slip Op 08332, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, ,

TO BE ENFORCEABLE, A WAIVER OF APPEAL MUST BE SUPPORTED BY A SENTENCING COMMITMENT OR OTHER CONSIDERATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that a waiver of appeal, to be enforceable, must be supported by a sentence promise as consideration:

Defendant correctly argues in his main brief that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because he pleaded guilty to the sole count of the indictment ” without receiving a sentencing commitment or any other consideration’ ” … . County Court’s promise to consider imposing a sentence below the statutory maximum merely restated its preexisting statutory and common-law obligation to impose an appropriate legal sentence … , and we agree with defendant that such a promise is the equivalent of no promise at all and cannot supply the consideration necessary to enforce a waiver of the right to appeal . As the Second Circuit explained in invalidating a waiver of the right to appeal under similar circumstances… , such an illusory promise is not consideration for a waiver because it affords the defendant “no benefit . . . beyond what he would have gotten by pleading guilty without an agreement” … . People v Schmidinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 08324, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated the plea and waiver of indictment because the approximate of the offense was not included in the waiver:

… [D]efendant contends that her waiver of indictment is jurisdictionally defective because it did not contain the “approximate time” of the offense (CPL 195.20). We agree. A jurisdictionally valid waiver of indictment must contain, inter alia, the “approximate time” of each offense charged in the superior court information (SCI) … . “The law demands strict and literal compliance with the constitutional and statutory framework for waiving indictment” … . ” [S]ubstantial compliance [with CPL 195.20] will not be tolerated’ ” … because “compliance with [its] literal terms . . . is the sine qua non of the voluntariness of an indictment waiver” … . Here, as the People correctly concede, the waiver of indictment does not contain the approximate time of the offense … . Moreover, we note that this is not a case ” where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable’ so as to excuse the absence of such information” … . People v Kerce, 2019 NY Slip Op 08310, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

FAILURE TO MENTION RESTITUTION IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE REQUIRES VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST BE REMEDIED UPON RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s sentence because the sentencing court did not mention restitution as part of the sentence in defendant’s presence. The error survives a lack of preservation and a waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department noted that any discrepancy between the restitution amount in the plea agreement and the amount in the confession of judgment must be remedied upon resentencing:

… [D]efendant contends, and the People concede, that his confession of judgment with respect to restitution must be voided because the amount thereof differs from the amount of restitution contemplated by the plea bargain. Although not raised by the parties, we conclude that defendant’s sentence must be vacated in its entirety because County Court failed to pronounce the sentence of restitution in open court … .

“CPL 380.20 and 380.40 (1) collectively require that courts must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered’ and that—subject to limited exceptions not relevant here— [t]he defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced’ ” … . Restitution is a component of the sentence to which CPL 380.20 and CPL 380.40 (1) apply … . The requirements of CPL 380.20 and CPL 380.40 (1) are “unyielding” … , and their violation may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding a valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review … . When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme … . People v Cleveland, 2019 NY Slip Op 08308, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

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