You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE APPLIED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY HURT HER BACK TRYING TO PREVENT A PATIENT FROM FALLING WHEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY USED A HOYER LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT FROM A WHEEL CHAIR TO A BED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applied. One of defendant’s employees tried to use a Hoyer lift to transfer the patient plaintiff was accompanying from a wheel chair to a bed. The lift began to tip over and plaintiff allegedly hurt her back trying to prevent the patient from falling:

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the claim for negligence based on the “danger invites rescue” doctrine (rescue doctrine) … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That “doctrine imposes liability upon a party who, by his [or her] culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his [or her] aid’ ” … , on the ground that “[t]he wrong that [*2]imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim . . . [and] also to his [or her] rescuer” … . For the rescue doctrine to apply, “it is sufficient that [the] plaintiff held a reasonable belief of imminent peril of serious injury to another, and it matters not that the peril feared did not materialize” … .

Here, in support of its motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein she testified that she informed defendant’s employee that two people were needed to move the patient onto the bed using the Hoyer lift, but the employee insisted on using the lift alone and did so in a manner that caused the lift to tilt which, in turn, caused the patient to begin to fall off of it. We conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to establish that “plaintiff’s rescue efforts were unreasonable as a matter of law or that plaintiff’s actions were so rash under the circumstances as to constitute an intervening and superseding cause’ of [her] alleged injuries” … . Payne v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08024, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY; THE CAR WAS BLACK AND THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT IN A STEADY RAIN; DEFENDANT DRIVER CLAIMED TO BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, 65 MPH; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ (Grice defendants’) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly  denied. Defendant driver, who allegedly was travelling at the speed limit, 65 mph,  struck a disabled car which was sideways in the left lane of a highway. The car was black and the accident happened at night when it was raining. Defendants argued the emergency doctrine applied:

Contrary to the Grice defendants’ contention, their submissions failed to establish as a matter of law that defendant was confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency situation to which he did not contribute. Although the accident occurred at night and the disabled vehicle was black and did not have its headlights on, the subject area of the highway was not curved and instead was straight and level with no permanent view obstructions or roadway defects to prevent defendant from perceiving the disabled vehicle. In addition, defendant testified at his deposition that he could see the “standard distance” with his headlights illuminating the roadway, yet he was unable to provide a reason why he did not observe the disabled vehicle prior to impact … . The fact that the disabled vehicle was positioned directly ahead of defendant on such an area of the highway with the headlights of defendant’s vehicle illuminating the roadway, “considered in light of [defendant’s] conceded failure to see anything prior to the impact, and his failure to take any steps to avoid the collision . . . , calls into question [his] testimony concerning the speed of his vehicle and his attentiveness as he drove” … . Moreover, inasmuch as the Grice defendants’ submissions established that the subject area of the highway was not well lit, that it was raining steadily rather than merely precipitating lightly, and that the highway was wet, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether defendant, who testified that he was driving at the posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour, was nonetheless operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions … . “If [a trier of fact] determines that [defendant’s] speed was unreasonable under the existing weather and road conditions, [the trier of fact] could also conclude that [defendant’s] own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision, thereby preventing him from escaping liability under the emergency doctrine” … . White v Connors, 2019 NY Slip Op 08017, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHAT SHOULD BE REDACTED FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this manslaughter case was entitled to a hearing to determine what information should be redacted from the presentence report. However she was not entitled to resentencing:

Defendant … contends that this matter should be remitted for a conference or summary hearing to determine what information should be redacted from the presentence report. We agree, and we note that the People do not oppose remittal for that purpose. The record establishes that defendant sent a letter to County Court objecting to certain portions of the report, including references to her failure to cooperate with law enforcement and to her invocation of her right to counsel. At sentencing, the court acknowledged the objections and indicated that it agreed with some, but not all, of them. The court, however, failed to articulate which portions should be redacted. Accordingly, because “defendant was not properly afforded an opportunity to challenge the contents of the presentence report” … , we hold the case and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings in accordance with our decision.

To the extent that defendant contends that she is entitled to be resentenced based on the alleged errors in the presentence report, we reject that contention inasmuch as there is no indication that the court relied on the alleged improper information contained in the report in sentencing her … . People v Ferguson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08016, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

,

THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA LAW IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, THEREFORE NEW YORK LAW APPLIES AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined New York applies in this action stemming from an accident in Pennsylvania:

New York law controls the resolution of its motion and this appeal. “[B]ecause New York is the forum state, i.e., the action was commenced here, New York’s choice-of-law principles govern the outcome of this matter’ ”  … . “The first step in any case presenting a potential choice of law issue is to determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the jurisdictions involved” … . Here, defendant failed to establish the existence of any conflict between New York and Pennsylvania law with respect to the issues raised in the motion, and therefore we need not engage in any choice of law analysis … . Farnham v MIC Wholesale Ltd, 2019 NY Slip Op 07178, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE REMEDIES MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT; THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE REMEDIES DESCRIBED WERE ‘SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE’ (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff provided a healthcare plan to defendant employer (ESC). Plaintiff alleged defendant extended healthcare coverage to an employee who was not qualified, and thereby breached the underlying contract:

… [D]ismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) was not warranted. In granting the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action, the court determined that the provision of certain remedies in the Contract precluded plaintiff from seeking additional damages from ESC under the “canon of contract construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is, that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of the other” … . The court further determined that the indemnification provision in the Contract did not apply to disputes between the parties. We conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff was limited to the remedies set forth in the Contract.

“[I]t is a basic tenet of the law of damages that where there has been a violation of a contractual obligation the injured party is entitled to fair and just compensation commensurate with [the] loss” … . “Limitations on a party’s liability will not be implied and to be enforceable must be clearly, explicitly and unambiguously expressed in a contract” … . As a result, “[u]nder New York law, a provision must be included in the agreement limiting a party’s remedies to those specified in the contract in order for courts to find that th[o]se remedies are exclusive” … .

Here, the Contract provided that, in the event an ineligible person was enrolled in the health care plan, plaintiff “may elect” certain remedies. It also addressed the obligations of the person who had received such benefits. There was nothing in the Contract stating that the contractual remedies were plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedies against ESC, i.e., the other party to the Contract … . HealthNow N.Y., Inc. v David Home Bldrs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07177, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

TRIAL EVIDENCE RENDERED THE SINGLE-COUNT INDICTMENT DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial evidence rendered the single-count indictment duplicitous. Defendant was charged with criminal mischief:

We agree with defendant, however, that the single-count indictment was rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence. CPL 200.30 (1) provides that “[e]ach count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Thus, “acts which separately and individually make out distinct crimes must be charged in separate and distinct counts” … . Here, the indictment charged defendant with damaging “the road surface at the intersection of Woolhouse Road and County Road #32” and thus was not facially defective. At trial, however, the evidence established that defendant committed two distinct offenses by damaging two different portions of the road at that intersection at two different times. Consequently, “[r]eversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [act of criminal mischief], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges . . . , as well as the danger that . . . different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts … . People v Kniffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 07176, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

GRANDMOTHER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VISITATION HEARD DESPITE THE FACT THAT GRANDMOTHER HAD BEEN GRANTED VISITATION WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; DISSENT ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed Family Court’s denial of grandmother’s petition for custody and visitation and heard the appeal despite the fact that grandmother was subsequently granted visitation. The majority applied the exception to the mootness doctrine to hear the appeal. An extensive dissent argued the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and the appeal should have been dismissed:

We reject the grandmother’s contention that the court erred in denying her petition for custody and granting custody to the mother. “It is well established that, as between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” … . Here, the grandmother failed to meet her burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant an inquiry into whether an award of custody to the grandmother is in the best interests of the child … . In particular, we conclude that the grandmother failed to establish her claim that the mother suffered from unaddressed, serious mental health issues that would warrant a finding of extraordinary circumstances … .

Contrary to the grandmother’s further contention, we conclude that, as of the time that the order was entered, the record supports the court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the subject child to deny the grandmother visitation “in view of  grandmother’s failure to abide by court orders, the grandmother’s animosity toward the [mother], with whom the child[ now] reside[s], and the fact that the grandmother frequently engaged in acts that undermined the subject child[]’s relationship with” the mother … . It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” … , and we perceive no basis for disturbing the court’s determination here … . Matter of Smith v Ballam, 2019 NY Slip Op 07170, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT A COGNIZABLE CRIME; CHARGING ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that attempted menacing of a police officer is not a cognizable crime because “attempt” is included in the offense. This was a mode of proceedings error that did not have to be preserved:

We agree with defendant … that his conviction of attempted menacing a police officer or peace officer must be reversed because that offense is not a legally cognizable crime. As relevant here, Penal Law § 120.18 provides that “[a] person is guilty of menacing a police officer or peace officer when he or she intentionally places or attempts to place a police officer . . . in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, . . . pistol, . . . or other firearm, whether operable or not, where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer.” Thus, according to the definition of menacing a police officer or peace officer set forth in the Penal Law, the attempt to commit the crime is already an element of the offense, and “there cannot be an attempt to commit a crime which is itself a mere attempt to do an act or accomplish a result” … . Although defendant failed to raise this issue at trial, preservation is not required inasmuch as this issue constitutes a mode of proceedings error … . People v Dibble, 2019 NY Slip Op 07165, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although there was a dangerous condition, defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not responsible for its repair:

… [D]efendant submitted the lease between defendant and plaintiff’s employer, which provided that the lessee was responsible for all maintenance and repair of the premises except for “Major Improvements,” which the lease defined as “any major repair (repairs that are not of the nature of ordinary maintenance such as local patches, caulking, flashing)” including “replacement of the roof, replacement of load-bearing walls and foundations, [and] repairs to the concrete floor.” We conclude that maintenance of the allegedly bent or defective metal strip was not a “Major Improvement[]” under the lease … .

Further, the record established that defendant relinquished control of the premises. The fact that, under the lease, defendant reserved the right to enter the leased premises for purposes of inspection and performing “Major Improvements,” is ” insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord’ ” … . “[A]n out-of-possession landlord who reserves that right may be held liable for injuries to a third party only where a specific statutory violation exists” … , and plaintiff failed to allege a specific statutory violation pertaining to the metal strip … . Addeo v Clarit Realty, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 07163, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

, ,

THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A BREAKWALL AND RETAINING WALLS ON LAKEFRONT PROPERTY WERE FENCES WHICH VIOLATED THE CODE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA’s) ruling that the breakwall and retaining walls on lakefront property were fences which violated the code was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was brought as a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and action under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988:

… [T]he undisputed relevant evidence establishes that the walls do not fall within the plain meaning of fences as defined by Code former § 77-1 inasmuch as they were not erected for the purpose of enclosing or dividing a piece of land …. Instead, the breakwall was constructed to maintain the shoreline of the lake in light of the future construction of a house on petitioner’s property, the septic system retaining wall was constructed to secure the integrity of the proposed leach field, and the north side retaining wall was constructed to provide better drainage and avoid soil erosion. We thus conclude that the ZBA’s determination affirming the order to remedy with respect to the violations of the Code that depend on the walls being considered fences lacks a rational basis and is not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Fox v Town of Geneva Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2019 NY Slip Op 07160

 

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