You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

ALLOWING LOSS PREVENTION OFFICERS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR BUT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defense counsel’s failure to object to testimony of loss prevention officers identifying defendant in a surveillance video was not demonstrated to amount to ineffective assistance:

Although we agree with defendant that there is no basis in the record to conclude that the loss prevention officers who gave testimony identifying defendant as an individual depicted in the surveillance video were more likely to correctly identify defendant from the video than the jury … , we further conclude that defendant failed to “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcoming[]” in failing to object to the admission of that testimony … . People v Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 08032, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE A TRAILER THROUGH THE EXIT WHICH DID NOT HAVE A STAIRWAY ATTACHED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1)  and 200 causes of action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff’s action was the sole proximate cause of his injury. There were two exits to the trailer plaintiff was in, one had a stairway attached and one did not. Plaintiff fell to the ground when he attempted to use the exit with no stairway:

Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, i.e., that there was a staircase by which plaintiff could have exited the trailer, that he knew that a staircase was available and that he was expected to use it, that he chose for “no good reason” not to use it and that, if he had not made that choice, he would not have been injured … . For the same reason, we conclude that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion and cross motion with respect to the claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence … . Dziadaszek v Legacy Stratford, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08029, Fourth Department 11-8-19

 

, ,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN FATHER’S ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Support Magistrate’s findings should not have been confirmed because the Support Magistrate allowed father’s attorney to withdraw without notice to father and proceeded in father’s absence:

… [T]he Support Magistrate erred in allowing the father’s attorney to withdraw as counsel and in proceeding with the hearing in the father’s absence. “An attorney may withdraw as counsel of record only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause and upon reasonable notice to the client . . . [, and a] purported withdrawal without proof that reasonable notice was given is ineffective” … . Here, the father’s attorney did not make a written motion to withdraw; rather, counsel merely agreed when the Support Magistrate, after noting the father’s failure to appear for the hearing, offered to relieve her of the assignment. The absence of evidence that the father was provided notice of his counsel’s decision to withdraw in accordance with CPLR 321 (b) (2) renders the Support Magistrate’s finding of default improper … . Matter of Gonzalez v Bebee, 2019 NY Slip Op 08027, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

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

 

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