You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s burn injuries was a guest’s (Gray’s) pouring kerosene onto an active fire in a fire pit at defendants’ home. All parties were adults. The mere presence of kerosene at the home did not constitute a dangerous condition. The dissenter argued defendant-parent did not demonstrate his daughter did not breach a duty to control the conduct of Gray:

Although plaintiff correctly contends that defendants owed him a duty of care as a guest on their property … , defendants’ submissions establish that they did not breach their duty to “act as . . . reasonable [persons] in maintaining [the] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . All attendees of the gathering at defendants’ property on the night of the incident were adults, and it was not unreasonable for defendants to allow the small group of adults to use the premises for an unsupervised gathering around a fire pit. Bavisotto v Doldan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06247, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

NO QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE THE STORM, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment under the storm in progress rule. The dissenters argued there was a question of fact whether the icy condition was there before the storm:

… [W]e conclude that defendants established as a matter of law “that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that [they] had no duty to remove the snow [or] ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm’ ” … .

Where, as here, a defendant’s own submissions do not raise an issue of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, nothing in her deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendants in support of their respective motions, raised a triable issue of fact whether the ice she allegedly observed existed before the storm … , and the evidence that plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motions also did not raise a triable issue of fact. Battaglia v MDC Concourse Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06310, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE AN ALIBI WITNESS WAS NOT INTERVIEWED; A WITNESS’S RECANTATION WAS PROPERLY FOUND UNBELIEVABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. The motion alleged that defense counsel did not adequately investigate alibi witnesses. The Fourth Department also held that County Court properly found a witness’s recantation of trial testimony unbelievable:

In recognition of the fact that “[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony” … , courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., “(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness’s demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the trial testimony; (4) the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the recantation; (5) the importance of facts established at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship between the witness and defendant as related to a motive to lie” … .  Another relevant factor is “whether the recantation refutes the eyewitness testimony of another witness” … . …

… [D]defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was supported by notarized but unsworn statements of two previously unknown individuals who claimed that they would have corroborated the trial testimony of defendant and his mother that defendant was at a party at his mother’s home for the entire evening of the shooting. One of those witnesses specifically stated that she was at all times willing to “make [a] statement” but was never contacted by defense counsel. Two additional witnesses stated that they observed defendant at that party some time after the shooting. While those witnesses do not provide a technical alibi for defendant because they did not discuss defendant’s location at the time of the shooting … , they tend to support the alibi evidence that defendant could not have been the shooter because he was at a party at his mother’s house for the entire evening … . People v Howard, 2019 NY Slip Op 06309, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

WRONGFUL CONVICTION ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, CONVICTION WAS NOT VACATED ON A GROUND ENUMERATED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined claimant’s wrongful conviction action was properly dismissed because claimant’s judgment of conviction was not vacated on a ground enumerated in the Court of Claims Act:

… [T]he County Court Judge averred that he vacated claimant’s judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (f) “and/or” CPL 440.10 (1) (h). More specifically, the County Court Judge determined that the People had committed a Rosario violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) (see People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638, 645 [1991]), “and/or” a Brady violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) … . The transcript of the hearing at which the County Court Judge vacated the judgment fully corroborates his sworn account of his rationale for overturning claimant’s conviction, and the transcript likewise supports the County Court Judge’s averment that he effectively denied claimant’s CPL article 440 motion to the extent predicated on any provision of CPL 440.10 (1) other than paragraphs (f) or (h). Thus, because paragraphs (f) and (h) of CPL 440.10 (1) “are not enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 8-b (3) (b) (ii), the [court] properly dismissed the claim” … . …

It is possible, as claimant notes, that the facts underlying a successful Brady claim under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) could also give rise to a viable claim of newly discovered evidence under CPL 440.10 (1) (g). That, however, is irrelevant for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 8-b, which allows recovery only where the criminal court actually vacated the judgment on an enumerated ground, and not where the criminal court might have vacated the judgment on an enumerated ground, but did not do so … . Jeanty v State of New York,2019 NY Slip Op 06333, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS’ TRUSTEE, A NONPARTY, IN AN UNRELATED MATTER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, determined that defendants’ attorneys, Rupp Baase, should not have been disqualified because the firm had represented a nonparty trustee of plaintiffs on an unrelated matter. The concurrence argued the matter was not justiciable because the court was asked to decide whether there was a conflict of interest between Rupp Baase and a nonparty. The lawsuit stemmed from a fire at plaintiffs’ Elks Lodge allegedly caused by a boiler installed by defendants:

… [P]laintiffs “had to establish that the issues in the present litigation are identical to or essentially the same as those in the prior representation or that [Rupp Baase] received specific, confidential information substantially related to the present litigation” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that a prior attorney-client relationship existed between Rupp Baase and the Trustee, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish that the interests of defendants in this action are materially adverse to the interests of the Trustee individually, who is not a named party and is merely a trustee of the Lodge. Plaintiffs likewise failed to establish that any alleged prior representation involved issues that were “identical to or essentially the same” as those in the instant lawsuit (id.). Although the Trustee asserts that he told Rupp Baase during their alleged representation of him that a fire had occurred on plaintiffs’ property due to defendants’ boiler installation, a claim that Rupp Baase disputes, we conclude that, even if the Trustee provided that information, it was not “specific [and] confidential” and thus does not warrant disqualification … . Because plaintiffs failed to establish that the Trustee’s interests are materially adverse to defendants’ in this lawsuit and that this lawsuit is substantially related to the alleged prior representation, the court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking disqualification of Rupp Baase … . Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of United States of Am. v Creative Comfort Sys., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06246, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. There were questions of fact about how the accident happened, whether the plaintiff was employed by a defendant, whether that defendant was employed by the owner, and whether defendant had authority or control over the site or plaintiff. In addition neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars cited a specific Industrial Code violation. The court noted than merely losing one’s balance and falling off a ladder does not give rise to liability under Labor Law 240 (1):

A defendant is not liable on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action unless it is an owner or “a general contractor or an agent of an owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work of . . . the injured plaintiff” … and, in order for the statute to apply, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or . . . agent [thereof]” … . …

Defendant would not be liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) if plaintiff merely lost his balance and fell off a ladder … . … Pelonero v Sturm Roofing, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06327, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET, DISSENTERS ARGUED THE COURT HAD THE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION AS A MOTION TO REARGUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to renew should not have been granted. The dissenters argued the motion could have been considered a motion to reargue in the exercise of discretion:

It is well settled that “[a] motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts that were unavailable at the time of the original motion . . . and, inter alia, that would change the prior determination” (… see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Further, “[a]lthough a court has discretion to grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made’ . . . , it may not exercise that discretion unless the movant establishes a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion’ ” ( …see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). In particular, “[l]eave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion” … . …

We reject our dissenting colleagues’ conclusion that the court would have been “justified” in exercising discretion to treat the motion to renew as a motion to reargue, and that it effectively did so in granting Camelot’s motion. We disagree. There is no justification in this case to “deem” Camelot’s motion as one seeking reargument and we decline to do so because, in our view, Camelot actively foreclosed that avenue of relief. The Walton & Willet Stone Block, LLC v City of Oswego Community Dev. Off., 2019 NY Slip Op 06245, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , , , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION OR PRIMA FACIE TORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, the assignee of no-fault benefits, did not state valid causes of action against the insurer for breach of contract, negligent hiring and supervision, and prima facie tort. The claims were paid by the defendant and plaintiff alleged flaws and delays in the processing of the claims:

The amended complaint, however, failed to identify the specific insurance contracts that plaintiff had performed services under or the contract provisions that defendant allegedly breached. Inasmuch as bare legal conclusions without factual support are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, we conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. …

Although “[a]n employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act”… , the amended complaint failed to allege that the acts of defendant’s employees were committed independent of defendant’s instruction or outside the scope of employment … . …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, the amended complaint alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intentionally caused harm to plaintiff by requesting verifications and examinations under oath. Those conclusory allegations, however, failed to state that defendant had ” a malicious [motive] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of [plaintiff]’ ” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of [a prima facie tort] cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … . Medical Care of W. N.Y. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06243, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT, REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO; STANDARD OF PROOF IS PREPONDERANCE NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to justify a level three risk assessment. The assessment was reduced to level two. The court noted that County Court should have applied the preponderant evidence standard, not a clear and convincing standard:

… [T]he People did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had the requisite pattern of drug use, and there is no “indication in the record that drugs . . . played a role in the instant offense” … . * * *

… [T]he hearsay statement by defendant’s ex-wife that he is a “marijuana addict” is entitled to no weight. Not only is that statement conclusory and unsupported by any other evidence, nothing in the record suggests that defendant’s ex-wife is qualified to diagnose addiction. * * *

… [T]he court erred in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility, given that he “pleaded guilty, admitted his guilt, appeared remorseful when interviewed in connection with the preparation of a presentence report, and apologized” for his conduct  … . People v Kowal, 2019 NY Slip Op 06325, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

TWELVE YEAR SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE THIRD DEGREE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE, REDUCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, reduced defendant’s sentence in this “criminal possession of a controlled substance third degree” case from 12 to seven years. The period of post-release supervision was reduced from three to one and a half years. Defendant was found in possession of over 35 ounces of cocaine:

… [W]e agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the resentence is unduly harsh and severe. We therefore modify the resentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to a determinate term of seven years and the period of PRS to a period of 1½ years … . People v Loiz, 2019 NY Slip Op 06240, 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