You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY REGISTERING AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION; DOCTORS DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY BECOMING LICENSED IN NEW YORK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery with regard to a hospital defendant in this medical malpractice action. The court noted that the hospital did not consent to the general jurisdiction of New York courts by registering as a foreign corporation with the Department of State and the defendant doctors did not consent to New York personal jurisdiction based upon becoming licensed to practice medicine in New York:

… [P]laintiff made a “sufficient start” in establishing personal jurisdiction over the hospital pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302 (a) (1) to be entitled to disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f)  … . The record “is not clear whether [the hospital’s] affiliations with the State [of New York] are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the . . . State’ ” as required for general jurisdiction … or whether its activities in New York are ” purposeful and [whether] there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted’ ” as required for long-arm jurisdiction … . However, the record contains evidence that the hospital advertises to prospective New York patients and has at least some relationship with New York providers, New York insurers, and defendant Guthrie Medical Group, P.C., which owns New York offices. The record also contains evidence that the hospital derives substantial revenue from New York residents. Based on that initial showing, we conclude that plaintiff has made a “sufficient start” by establishing that facts “may exist to exercise personal jurisdiction” over the hospital, warranting jurisdictional discovery … . Best v Guthrie Med. Group, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06320, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

CELLINO’S PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF CELLINO & BARNES PC PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s (Cellino’s) petition for dissolution of the professional corporation (Cellino & Barnes, PC) properly survived a motion for summary dismissal:

… [W]e reject respondents’ [Barnes’] contention that the court erred in denying their motion insofar as it sought summary dismissal of the amended petition on the ground that dissolution would not benefit the shareholders because the PC has continued to function effectively and prosperously. The determination whether a corporation should be dissolved is within the discretion of the court (see Business Corporation Law § 1111 [a] … ), and “the benefit to the shareholders of a dissolution is of paramount importance” in making that determination … . Although respondents submitted evidence demonstrating that the PC has continued to conduct business at a profit, dissolution is not to be denied in a proceeding brought pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 simply because the corporate business has been conducted at a profit … or because the dissension has not yet had an appreciable impact on the profitability of the corporation … .

Here, the record contains ample evidence of dissension and deadlock between petitioner and Barnes, and we conclude that … petitioner raised issues of fact whether dissension and deadlock have so impeded the ability of the PC to function effectively that dissolution would benefit the shareholders. In a close corporation like the PC, “the relationship between the shareholders is akin to that of partners and when the relationship begins to deteriorate, the ensuing deadlock and dissension can effectively destroy the orderly functioning of the corporation” … . When a point is reached at which the shareholders who are actively conducting the business of the corporation cannot agree, dissolution may be in the best interests of those shareholders … , and we agree with the court’s determination that a hearing should be held to give the parties an opportunity to present their evidence on this controverted issue … . Matter of Cellino v Cellino & Barnes, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06365, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON BY THE PEOPLE; OBSERVATION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DRUG TRANSACTION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE; THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIED; THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence was properly denied, finding (1) the suppression court could properly consider all the evidence presented by the People, even if the evidence was not expressly relied upon by the People; (2) although the vehicle occupants were seized at the time the police approached, the officers’ prior observation of what appeared to be a drug transaction provided probable cause; (3) the search of the vehicle was justified by the automobile exception; and (4) the inventory search was lawful:

… [W]e conclude that the court was entitled to consider legal justifications that were supported by the evidence, even if they were not raised explicitly by the People (see CPL 710.60 [6] …). “By presenting evidence sufficient to support the court’s findings, the People met their burden of going forward . . . and the court may rely on any legal justification for police conduct for which there is factual support in the record” … . …

… .[B]efore defendant’s seizure, an officer observed defendant conduct what, based on his training and experience, appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction, even though he “couldn’t tell” what “items” he had seen during the exchange other than money. Additionally, that officer was in the area conducting surveillance on an unrelated narcotics investigation, raising the inference that the transaction occurred in a drug-prone area. Furthermore, once two other officers approached the vehicle based on the above observations, one officer saw packaging material of the kind used to store narcotics, and the other officer observed that the driver of the vehicle engaged in “furtive” behavior. Based on the totality of those factors, we conclude that the police had probable cause to believe that defendant engaged in a narcotics offense justifying the stop of the vehicle and his arrest … . …

“The [automobile] exception requires both probable cause to search the automobile generally and a nexus between the probable cause to search and the crime for which the arrest is being made’ ” … . Based on the foregoing, at the time of the search, the police had probable cause to believe that narcotics or packaging materials used in the sale and possession of narcotics were present in the vehicle … . Thus, inasmuch as there was a nexus between the probable cause to search the vehicle and the crime for which defendant was being arrested, we conclude that the police were not required to obtain a warrant … . People v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 06361, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s absence from sidebar conferences did not require reversal:

Defendant contends that the court violated the rule in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992] …) when it conducted several sidebar conferences in his absence and that reversal is required with respect to two of those conferences. We disagree with defendant that reversal is required as a result of any violation of defendant’s Antommarchi rights. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see CPL 260.20 …), including the sidebar questioning of a prospective juror when the purpose of the questioning is “intended to search out a prospective juror’s bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” … . Nevertheless, “reversal is not required when, because of the matter then at issue before the court or the practical result of the determination of that matter, the defendant’s presence could not have afforded him or her any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome” … . In determining whether the defendant’s presence could have afforded him or her such an opportunity, the test is whether the record negates the possibility that the defendant “could have provided valuable input on his [or her] counsel’s apparently discretionary choice to excuse those venire persons” … . Thus, reversal is not required where the defendant’s attorney does not exercise a choice to exclude a prospective juror, such as where a prospective juror is excused for cause or where the People have exercised a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror … .

… [W]e conclude that defendant had no opportunity to provide any input that might have affected the outcome regarding the relevant prospective jurors. People v Wilkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY THE TENANT, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPAID WATER CHARGES INCURRED BY THE TENANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency (HCIDA) as the owner of property which had been abandoned by the tenant was responsible to the Village for water charges incurred by the tenant:

… [W]here, as here, an owner “consents to the tenant’s using water in [a] building, supplied through pipes installed by the owner, or continued by the owner, for the purpose of connecting the building with the [municipality’s] water main, the owner assents to the [municipality’s] supplying water to the tenant for use in the building” … . In the case before us, it appears that the water pipes of the facility that were connected to the Village’s water mains “were installed by the owner of the [facility], if not by the present owner, [HCIDA], then by [its] predecessor in title and the connection was never shut off or disconnected by [HCIDA],” and we note that “[t]he only purpose of maintaining a connection between [the facility] and the [Village’s] water mains [was] to have the [Village] supply the [facility] with water”… . Moreover, the lease contemplated that the tenant would incur utility charges as part of its operation, use, and occupancy of the leased facility. “When such assent [to] or arrangement [for the tenant’s use of water] is made, it must be deemed to be made with a view to the existing law” … . We therefore must evaluate the existing law at the time of HCIDA’s assent to the Village supplying water to the tenant in order to determine whether liability for the unpaid water rents may be imposed upon HCIDA. …

… [U]nder the section entitled “Liability for Water Service,” Rule No. 7 of the [Village] regulations provides that “[a]ll bills, whether for use of water or repairs to water service, are a charge against the owner of the premises or property where the water is used, and said bills will be rendered to the owner or occupant of said premises.” Under the same section, Rule No. 8 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll bills for the use of water become due and payable and are a lien on the premises where the water is used” and that “[f]ailure to receive bills for said water services . . . does not relieve the owner and/or consumer from liability to pay.” … Upon construing the regulations as a whole and according to the ordinary and plain meaning of the words therein, we conclude that the regulations provide for the imposition of liability on property owners for water consumed on such property and supplied by the Village.  Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2019 NY Slip Op 06237, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS KILLED WHEN A HEAVY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HE WAS WELDING FELL; ALTHOUGH THE EQUIPMENT WAS FABRICATED FOR A POWER PLANT BEING CONSTRUCTED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not involved in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was pinned and killed by a piece of equipment he was welding. Plaintiff was engaged in fabricating a rotor compartment which was to be installed in a power plaint in New Hampshire. Plaintiff and the dissent argued plaintiff’s work was part of the New Hampshire construction project:

We conclude that defendants thus established that decedent was not engaged in a covered activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) inasmuch as he was performing his “customary occupational work of fabricating” and welding a rotor compartment “during the normal manufacturing process” at the plant in Wellsville, and was not involved in the construction project in New Hampshire nor involved in renovation or alteration work on the plant in Wellsville … . Preston v APCH, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06236, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, NONFEASANCE OR NEGLECT IN OFFICE OF THREE PUBLIC OFFICIALS; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ DUTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that the grand jury reports concerning the alleged misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect in office of three public officials should not have been accepted by County Court. The reports were therefore sealed:

… County Court erred in directing the public filing of three grand jury reports that accused each appellant respectively of misconduct, nonfeasance, or neglect in office (see generally CPL 190.85 [1] [a]). …

“It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to instruct the [g]rand [j]ury regarding the duties and responsibilities of the public servant . . . target[ed by] the probe’ ” … .”Without a charge as to the substantive aspects of the official’s duties, it [is] not only impossible for the [g]rand [j]ury to determine that the public servant was guilty of misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect, but impermissible as well, for it allow[s] the [g]rand [j]ury to simply substitute its judgment for that of the public servant” … . Here, the prosecutor failed to provide the grand jury with any instructions regarding appellants’ substantive duties in office. Matter of May/June 2018 Oneida County Grand Jury Report (John Doe #1), 2019 NY Slip Op 06356, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

MAINTENANCE FEES IMPOSED BY THE TOWN FOR TRIMMING AND REMOVING BRUSH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT TAXES, THEREFORE THE TOWN IS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FROM THE COUNTY FOR UNPAID MAINTENANCE FEES, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two justice dissent, determined that maintenance fees imposed by the town for trimming and removing brush from private property are not taxes. Therefore the town cannot seek credit from the county for unpaid maintenance fees:

Section 936 (1) of the RPTL [Real Property Tax Law] provides that the county guarantees the town’s “taxes” by crediting the town “with the amount of . . . unpaid delinquent taxes.” The question raised on this appeal is whether the maintenance charges are “taxes” for the purposes of RPTL 936 and thus whether the County respondents must credit the Town petitioners for the amount of any such charge that goes unpaid or is delinquent.

The maintenance charges are assessed against individual properties for their benefit and thus do not fall within the general definition of “tax,” which instead contemplates ” public burdens imposed generally for governmental purposes benefitting the entire community’ ” … . Nor do those charges constitute “special ad valorem levies” as defined by RPTL 102 (14). A ” [s]pecial ad valorem levy’ ” is “a charge imposed upon benefitted real property in the same manner and at the same time as taxes for municipal purposes to defray the cost, including operation and maintenance, of a special district improvement or service” (id.). Although the definition of “tax” does, in certain enumerated circumstances, include “special ad valorem levies” (RPTL 102 [20]), the maintenance charges are not special ad valorem levies because they are not used to defray the cost of a “special district improvement or service” (RPTL 102 [14]). Maintenance charges also are not assessed “ad valorem” because the amount of the charge is not based on property value but is instead based on the actual expense to the town. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the charges are “special assessments” as defined by RPTL 102 (15), we note that the definition of “tax” specifically excludes “special assessments” (RPTL 102 [20]). Matter of Town of Irondequoit v County of Monroe, 2019 NY Slip Op 06235, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE DESPITE THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE A KNIFE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the robbery count, despite the victim’s testimony he did not see a knife:

… [T]he victim observed a “small silver ring” in defendant’s hand. Although the victim did not see the blade of a knife at that time, he thought that defendant had a knife based upon his observation of the shiny, metal object in defendant’s hand that defendant tried to press against or jab toward the victim’s stomach. After the victim was able to pull away from defendant and warn him not to further approach, defendant walked away, and the victim called the police to report the crime and provide a description of the suspect. A police officer who responded a few minutes later testified that he apprehended defendant a couple blocks away carrying a Swiss Army knife with the blade extended.

… [W]e conclude that the victim’s testimony regarding his observation of the object in defendant’s hand during the encounter and the officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s apprehension close in time and place while carrying a knife is legally sufficient to support a prima facie case of robbery in the first degree with respect to defendant’s actual possession of a dangerous instrument … . Defendant nonetheless challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the ground that the victim’s further testimony that he “guess[ed]” what he saw “was the edge of [defendant’s] Swiss Army knife that he had” constitutes inadmissible hearsay because the victim was repeating information that he must have obtained from the police regarding the precise nature of the object in defendant’s possession. Even assuming, arguendo, that such further testimony by the victim constituted inadmissible hearsay, we note that “the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … , and that is not the case here given the sufficiency of the remaining evidence … . People v Rawlinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 06354, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY VIOLATED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY DEPOSING A NONPARTY WITNESS WHEN HER COUNSEL WAS NOT PRESENT, HOWEVER THE VIOLATION DID NOT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS AND DID NOT THEREFORE REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney for deposing an important nonparty witness without counsel present was properly denied. However, Supreme Court should not have precluded further questioning of the witness:

“Disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel . . . is a severe remedy which should only be done in cases where counsel’s conduct will probably taint the underlying trial’ ” … . Here, although plaintiff’s attorney improperly engaged in conversations with an allegedly represented nonparty witness, delayed in providing notes regarding one of those conversations, and allegedly misrepresented the nature of one of the conversations, we reject defendants’ contentions that plaintiff’s attorney has gained any unfair advantage requiring his disqualification.

Generally, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, while relevant to the issue whether the attorney’s continued participation will taint a case, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to warrant disqualification … . Based on our review of the records … , we cannot conclude that plaintiff’s attorney obtained any information that he could not have otherwise obtained in the ordinary course of discovery … . Any improper testimony from the witness at her first deposition would be inadmissible at trial, and we doubt that any knowledge plaintiff’s attorney acquired regarding the witness’s inadmissible opinions would lead the attorney to develop a novel theory of the case or to uncover otherwise undiscovered information. We thus conclude that disqualification of plaintiff’s attorney was not “necessary in order to rectify the situation and to prevent the offending [attorney] from realizing any unfair advantage” from his conduct … . Harris v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06352, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

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