You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS REINSTATED AGAINST SEVERAL DEFENDANTS; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE ACTIONS WERE REINSTATED BASED UPON A NEW THEORY WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, reinstated the medical malpractice action against several defendants. The dissent argued that evidence submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment presented a new theory and should have been rejected on that ground. The dissent argued that the new theory was raised for the first time in a “supplemental” bill of particulars which, the majority concluded, had been properly struck by Supreme Court:

… [W]e conclude that the court properly granted the motions to strike plaintiff’s “supplemental” bills of particulars inasmuch as they were actually amended bills of particulars. We further conclude that the amended bills of particulars are “a nullity” inasmuch as the note of issue had been filed and plaintiff failed to seek leave to serve amended bills of particulars before serving them upon defendants … .

From the dissent:

… [P]laintiff’s expert’s opinions on malpractice and causation cannot create a question of fact because they are based on a new condition and new injury. Plaintiff’s expert opined that: plaintiff’s son developed Henoch-Schonlein Purpura (HSP) in the days before presenting to the emergency room and was suffering from HSP when he presented to the emergency room; plaintiff’s son was misdiagnosed and the correct diagnosis was HSP; as a result of the mistriage, plaintiff’s son went into hypovolemic shock; and, if properly triaged, plaintiff’s son’s condition, i.e., HSP, never would have progressed to hypovolemic shock.

Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion regarding failure to triage and diagnose relates to a new condition, HSP, and his opinion on proximate cause relates to a new injury, hypovolemic shock, neither of which were included in plaintiff’s original bill of particulars and both of which were included in the “supplemental” bills of particulars, which this Court unanimously agrees were properly struck. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert’s opinions regarding the defendants’ negligence and proximate cause involve a new condition and new injury not included in plaintiff’s original bill of particulars, they constituted a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used to defeat the defendants’ motions … . Jeannette S. v Williot, 2020 NY Slip Op 00743, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against the owner of a defendant strip club for injuries incurred when plaintiff was arm-wrestling with defendant’s employee should have been dismissed. Defendant’s employee was not acting within the scope of his employment and defendant therefore could not be liable under a respondeat superior theory:

… [W]e conclude that defendants met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the employee’s act of arm wrestling plaintiff was not within the scope of his employment and that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . The uncontroverted evidence submitted by defendants demonstrated that, although the employee had various responsibilities at the club, he was not required to entertain the club’s patrons, and he arm wrestled plaintiff out of personal motives unrelated to any of his job responsibilities … . Gehrke v Mustang Sally’s Spirits & Grill, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00741, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

THE MAJORITY NOTED THAT A DECISION IS NOT AN APPEALABLE PAPER BUT HELD THE DECISION HERE IN THIS DIVORCE CASE MET THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN ORDER AND WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that, although a decision is not an appealable paper, the decision in this divorce action was close enough to an order to support an appeal. The dissent disagreed:

As a preliminary matter, although not raised by the parties and although “[n]o appeal lies from a mere decision” (… see generally CPLR 5501 [c]; 5512 [a]), we conclude that the paper appealed from meets the essential requirements of an order, and we therefore treat it as such … .

From the dissent:

In 1987, this Court held that “[n]o appeal lies from a mere decision” (Kuhn v Kuhn, 129 AD2d 967, 967 [4th Dept 1987]). In reaching that conclusion, we relied on, inter alia, CPLR 5512 (a), titled “appealable paper,” which provides that “[a]n initial appeal shall be taken from the judgment or order of the court of original instance.” Until today, we have routinely followed that settled principle … . * * *

Here, the record includes a decision that is denominated only as a decision and has no ordering paragraphs and, in his notice of appeal, plaintiff explicitly appeals “from the Decision” (emphasis added). My colleagues in the majority believe that the decision is an appealable paper because it meets “the essential requirements of an order.” To support that proposition, the majority relies on Matter of Louka v Shehatou (67 AD3d 1476 [4th Dept 2009]), wherein this Court determined that a letter would be treated as an order inasmuch as “the Referee filed the letter with the Family Court Clerk and . . . the letter resolved the motion and advised the father that he had a right to appeal” (id. at 1476). Although the decision here was filed and resolved the motion, there was no directive in the decision that plaintiff had the right to appeal from it. Furthermore, I submit that almost all written decisions at least attempt to resolve the issues presented by the parties and many of those decisions are also filed. Nicol v Nicol, 2020 NY Slip Op 00740, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

STATUTE CRIMINALIZING THE POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined that the statute prohibiting possession of an unlicensed firearm in the home does not violate the Second Amendment:

… [D]efendant contends that New York may not constitutionally impose any criminal sanction whatsoever on the unlicensed possession of a handgun in the home. * * *

… [I]t is beyond dispute that “New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention” … . Those concerns include the state’s “substantial and legitimate interest and[,] indeed, . . . grave responsibility, in insuring the safety of the general public from individuals who, by their conduct, have shown” that they should not be entrusted with a dangerous instrument … . …

… [T]the criminal prohibition on the unlicensed possession of a handgun, including in the home, bears a substantial relationship to the state’s interests. “In the context of firearm regulation, the legislature is far better equipped than the judiciary’ to make sensitive public policy judgments (within constitutional limits) concerning the dangers in carrying [and possessing] firearms and the manner to combat those risks” … . People v Tucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 00739, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant made a left turn in front of plaintiff’s motorcycle:

A court should be guided by the rule that, “if the verdict is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury” … . Here, as the court charged the jury, “defendant had a common-law duty to see that which [he] should have seen through the proper use of [his] senses” … . The evidence undisputedly established that the area of the accident did not have any obstructions and that defendant had a clear line of sight of oncoming traffic. Inasmuch as defendant admitted at trial that he never saw plaintiff or his motorcycle prior to the accident, we conclude that the finding that defendant was not negligent could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Cramer v Schruefer, 2020 NY Slip Op 00728, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

, ,

CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s (Huntress’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant’s (Kingsbury’s) action for wrongful eviction (RPAPL 853) should not have been granted:

The sole contention raised by Huntress in support of his motion with respect to the first cross claim was that he could not be personally liable inasmuch as he was acting as an agent of a disclosed principal. We conclude that Huntress failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cross claim and, as a result, the burden never shifted to Kingsbury to raise a triable issue of fact … .

“It is well established that [a] corporate officer may be held personally liable for a tort of the corporation if he or she committed or participated in its commission, whether or not his or her acts are also by or for the corporation’ ” … . A cause of action under RPAPL 853 sounds in tort … . Here, Huntress failed to establish that he did not participate in the eviction of Kingsbury, and he therefore failed to establish as a matter of law that he cannot be held personally liable if the eviction violated RPAPL 853 … . Canandaigua Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Acquest S. Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 09130, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT SUSPENDED MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS; THE PAYMENTS WERE GOVERNED BY THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in suspending maintenance payments to mother because the maintenance was provided for in the parties’ separation agreement:

… [W]e agree with the mother and the AFC [attorney for the child] that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in suspending maintenance payments to the mother inasmuch as the parties’ separation agreement setting forth that obligation is an independent contract … . Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute … , and “[i]t generally has no subject matter jurisdiction to reform, set aside or modify the terms of a valid separation agreement”… . We therefore modify the order by vacating the tenth provision of the second ordering paragraph insofar as it relates to the suspension of maintenance payments, and we remit the matter to Family Court for a determination of the amount of any maintenance arrears … . Matter of Krier v Krier, 2019 NY Slip Op 09129, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

PORTIONS OF CITY SIDEWALK ELEVATED BY TREE ROOTS AND “REPAIRED” WITH COLD PATCH; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY ARE LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined: (1) there are questions of fact concerning whether the abutting property owners are liable for this sidewalk slip and fall; (2) there are questions of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition by patching the sidewalk. Plaintiff tripped and fell in an area where the sidewalk had been elevated by tree roots:

… [T]he Charter of the City of Buffalo (Charter) § 413-50 (A) specifically imposes on “owner[s] or occupant[s] of any lands fronting or abutting on any street,” i.e., the property defendants, a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalk and provides that their failure to do so will result in liability for injuries to users of the sidewalk. Contrary to the property defendants’ contention, that duty to maintain and repair extends to damage caused by the roots of a tree owned by the City where, as here, “the local ordinance contains no exceptions to the duty imposed on abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalk, even if the allegedly dangerous condition was created by a root extending from [City] property” … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted by the property defendants in support of their motion, which was then incorporated into the City’s cross motion, raised triable issues of fact whether the City performed the “cold patch” repair to the area sometime before plaintiff’s accident and whether the condition of the sidewalk on the day of plaintiff’s accident was the same as when the “cold patch” was first applied. We thus conclude that the City failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not affirmatively create a dangerous condition or that the dangerous condition was due solely to conditions that developed over time … . Beagle v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 09126, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, ,

VENUE FOR THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING TO ANNUL A TOWN LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED A WILDLIFE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TOWN IS LOCATED PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW SECTION 66 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, determined Supreme Court properly found that Orleans County, not Niagara County, was the correct venue for this hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a Town of Shelby Local Law creating a wildlife refuge overlay district, and further seeking to annul the Town Board’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The legal analysis is too detailed to be fully summarized here:

The primary issue raised on this appeal involves the interplay between three statutory provisions concerning venue, i.e., CPLR 504 (2), CPLR 506 (b), and Town Law § 66 (1) and, ultimately, whether Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondents-defendants (respondents) to transfer venue of this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action from Niagara County to Orleans County. We conclude that the court properly transferred venue pursuant to Town Law § 66 (1). …

Town Law § 66 (1) provides that “[t]he place of trial of all actions and proceedings against a town or any of its officers or boards shall be the county in which the town is situated.”

We conclude that Town Law § 66 applies and, as such, the proper venue in the instant action is Orleans County rather than Niagara County. Matter of Zelazny Family Enters., LLC v Town of Shelby, 2019 NY Slip Op 09124, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

AN ORDER ADDRESSING WHETHER DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY ARE PRIVILEGED IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) an order concerning whether documents sought in discovery were privileged, noted that the order was appealable as of right:

During discovery, a dispute arose over allegedly privileged documents that plaintiff withheld or redacted. In its privilege logs, plaintiff asserted that many of the documents were protected from disclosure on three grounds, i.e., that they were material prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]), attorney work product (see CPLR 3101 [c]), or protected by the attorney-client privilege (see CPLR 4503 [1]). Plaintiff asserted that a few documents were not discoverable on the sole basis that they were materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Campany and the Travelers defendants separately moved, inter alia, to compel plaintiff’s disclosure of various documents or, in the alternative, for an in camera review of the documents. Plaintiff moved for, among other things, a protective order, contending that all communications involving attorneys or litigation experts on and after October 24, 2016 were presumptively privileged because the Travelers defendants and plaintiff contemplated litigation at that time. Supreme Court denied the Travelers defendants’ motion, denied in part Campany’s motion, and granted plaintiff’s motion by, as relevant here, ordering that all documents of plaintiff created on and after October 24, 2016 were not discoverable because they were material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Campany and the Travelers defendants appeal.

Initially, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the order is not appealable. CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v) provides that, with limited exceptions, which are not applicable here, an appeal may be taken to this Court as of right from an order where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it “affects a substantial right.” An order granting a protective order and precluding discovery of numerous documents affects a substantial right of Campany and the Travelers defendants, and the order is thus appealable as of right … . John Mezzalingua Assoc., LLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 09157, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

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