You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF LOAN SERVICING COMPANY WAIVED THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE PROVISION BY ITS RELENTLESS EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER (TO EXACT A HIGHER PRICE); THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY A WRITTEN DECISION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING REGULATION; SANCTIONS ASPECT REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff loan company waived the time of the essence provision in this foreclosure sale to the highest bidder, Fox, by its relentless attempts to prevent the sale from going forward (to exact a higher purchase price). The Fourth Department noted that the sanctions imposed upon plaintiff were not supported by a written decision as required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and remanded for compliance with the regulation:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in determining that Fox did not breach the time is of the essence clause. It is well settled that “[a] party may waive timely performance even where the parties have agreed that time is of the essence” … , and that such a waiver may be accomplished by the conduct of a party … . Here, we agree with the court that plaintiff’s relentless attempts to prevent the sale from going forward constituted a waiver of the time is of the essence clause.

We also reject plaintiff’s further contention that the court erred in determining that plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct and in imposing sanctions for such conduct. We conclude that plaintiff’s conduct was “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law[, and was] undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2] …). Nevertheless, we conclude that the court erred in failing to comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 because “it failed to set forth in a written decision the conduct on which . . . the imposition [of sanctions] is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount . . . imposed to be appropriate’ ” … . We therefore modify the order by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for compliance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Strauss, 2019 NY Slip Op 05866, Fourth Dept 7-31-1

 

DEFENDANTS’ USE OF DOMAIN NAMES VERY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF’S STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND CYBERSQUATTING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for unfair competition and cybersquatting by using domain names similar to plaintiff’s:

… [D[efendants … operate a website accessed at idealyou.com. In 2016, … plaintiff…, established a competing business that operates a website accessed at idealbuff.com. …

… [O]n the day plaintiff opened her business, defendants purchased two domain names, idealbuf.com and idealbuffalo.com, and redirected all web traffic from those addresses to idealyou.com.  …

… As relevant to the cause of action for unfair competition, the statute prohibits using “any word, term, name, symbol, or device . . . or any false designation of origin . . . which . . . is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association . . . as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of . . . goods, services, or commercial activities by another person” … . We agree with plaintiff that, accepting the allegations in the third-party complaint as true … defendants’ use of the idealbuf.com and idealbuffalo.com domain names could be misleading and thus constitute unfair competition under the statute … . …

“To successfully assert a claim [for cybersquatting], a plaintiff must demonstrate that[:] (1) its marks were distinctive at the time the domain name was registered; (2) the infringing domain names complained of are identical to or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s mark; and (3) that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark” … . The Ideal You Weight Loss Ctr., LLC v Zillioux, 2019 NY Slip Op 05900, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

A COURT MAY CONVERT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT NOTICE WHERE A PURE QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED; THE STRICTER STANDARDS FOR NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT DO NOT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SALE OF A BUSINESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that Supreme Court properly dispensed with notice when it converted a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment on a contractual-interpretation issue, and further noted the difference between non-competition agreements in the employment context and in the sale-of-a-business context. Here defendant sold his business, including goodwill, to plaintiff and then was employed by plaintiff:

… [A]lthough the court is normally required to give notice to the parties before converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment … , the court properly dispensed with the statutory notice here inasmuch as the issue presented “rested entirely upon the construction and interpretation of an unambiguous contractual provision . . . [that] exclusively involve[d] issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties’ ” … . …

Because plaintiff sold his business to defendant, including the goodwill of that business, the enforceability of the restrictive covenants must be evaluated pursuant to the standard applicable to the sale of a business rather than the “stricter standard of reasonableness” applicable to employment contracts … . It is well settled that a covenant restricting the right of a seller of a business to compete with the buyer is enforceable if its duration and scope are “reasonably necessary to protect the buyer’s legitimate interest in the purchased asset” … . Frank v Metalico Rochester, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05863, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, BASED UPON A JUROR’S KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, based upon a connection between a juror and defendant’s mother, should not have been denied without a hearing:

… [T]he court erred in summarily denying his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2). The sworn allegations in support of defendant’s motion, including those in the affidavit of his mother, indicated that a juror may have had an undisclosed, potentially strained relationship with the mother resulting from attending high school and working together, possibly knew about defendant’s criminal history, and purportedly attempted to speak with the mother’s husband during a lunch break at trial, and that the alleged misconduct was “not known to the defendant prior to rendition of the verdict” … . We conclude that the allegations ” required a hearing on the issue whether the juror’s alleged misconduct prejudiced a substantial right of defendant’ ” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to conduct a hearing on defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion. People v Blunt, 2019 NY Slip Op 05917, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

DEFENDANT’S PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED ABSENT A HEARING OR AN ADMISSION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s probation should not have been revoked absent a hearing or an admission:

“A court may not revoke a sentence of probation without finding that the defendant has violated a condition [there]of . . . and affording [him or her] an opportunity to be heard (see CPL 410.70 [1]). The statutory requirements may be satisfied either by conducting a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70 (3) . . . , or through an admission by the defendant of the violation, coupled with a proper waiver of [his or her] right to a hearing” … . Here, as the People correctly concede, defendant never admitted to violating his probation and the court never conducted a revocation hearing. People v Ayotunji A., 2019 NY Slip Op 05916, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , ,

FIBER OPTIC CABLES AND ENCLOSURES ARE TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the fiber optic cables and equipment at issue constitute taxable property under RPTL 102, in that the statutory exception for radio and television signals was not demonstrated to be applicable:

…  [T]ax exclusions are never presumed or preferred and before [a] petitioner may have the benefit of them, the burden rests on it to establish that the item comes within the language of the exclusion.’ Moreover, a statute authorizing a tax exemption will be construed against the taxpayer unless the taxpayer identifies a provision of law plainly creating the exemption . . . Thus, the taxpayer’s interpretation of the statute must not simply be plausible, it must be the only reasonable construction’ ” … . …

… [P]etitioners contend that their fiber optic installations are not taxable property pursuant to RPTL 102 (12) (i) (D) because, inter alia, petitioners use those properties to some unspecified extent to transmit “news or entertainment radio, television or cable television signals for immediate, delayed or ultimate exhibition to the public” … . We reject that contention. In light of petitioners’ failure to establish the percentage of their fiber optic installations that are used for those purposes, we may accept their contention only if we conclude that any such usage of fiber optic installations, no matter how slight, is sufficient to exclude the properties from the tax. That is not ” the only reasonable construction’ ” of the statute … , indeed, it is “simply [not plausible” … . If we accept that interpretation, based on the proliferation of uses of cell phones to stream video, television, and other programming, all fiber optic cables will be excluded from taxation. That, however, conflicts with the Court of Appeals’ determination in T-Mobile Northeast, LLC that such property is taxable (32 NY3d at 608). Moreover, RPTL 102 (12) (i) provides that taxable property includes all “wires, poles, supports and inclosures for electrical conductors upon, above and underground used in connection with the transmission or switching of electromagnetic voice, video and data signals between different entities.” Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Erie County, 2019 NY Slip Op 05913, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

87 DAY DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE DESPITE THE ‘READY FOR TRIAL’ ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, determined the 87 day delay during which the People sought a superseding indictment was attributable to the People despite their “ready for trial” announcement and despite the absence of a specific request for an adjournment:

… [The]period of delay was “attributable to [the People’s] inaction and directly implicate[d] their ability to proceed to trial” on a charge of CPCS in the fifth degree, i.e., the crime that the People sought to add by way of a superseding indictment and the sole crime for which defendant was ultimately convicted … . Contrary to the court’s determination, the 87-day period was not attributable to the court given that it was “the People’s inaction [in securing a superseding indictment that] resulted in a delay in the court’s [trial of the action]” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, it is well established that postreadiness delay may be assessed “notwithstanding that the People have answered ready for trial within the statutory time limit” … and notwithstanding the absence of an explicit prosecutorial request for an adjournment … . Although certain periods of time may be excluded from assessment as postreadiness delay where the People successfully invoke one of the exceptions enumerated in CPL 30.30 (4) … , the People have identified no exception that might excuse the 87-day delay at issue here … . People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05920, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING THE HANDGUN WAS IN RESPONSE TO POLICE ILLEGALITY, THE HANDGUN WAS NOT ABANDONED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the handgun discarded by the defendant during a police chase should have been suppressed. The police were responding to information that a black male had discharged a weapon. There were several black males in the area and nothing indicated defendant was involved in criminal activity. The defendant did not abandon the weapon because it was discarded in response to police illegality:

… [T]he officer’s action of pursuing defendant in response to his flight was not justified at its inception inasmuch as there were no specific circumstances indicating that defendant may have been engaged in criminal activity so as to give rise to reasonable suspicion … . Although the officer observed defendant walking in the general vicinity of the reported gun shots, that observation does not provide the “requisite reasonable suspicion, in the absence of other objective indicia of criminality’ ” that would justify pursuit, and no such evidence was presented at the suppression hearing … . In the absence of other identifying information, the fact that defendant may have matched the vague, generic description of the suspect as a black male, which could have applied to any number of individuals in the area of the large apartment complex with hundreds of residents, did not sufficiently indicate that defendant may have been engaged in criminal activity … . Thus, the pursuit of defendant was unlawful. * * *

… [D]defendant’s act of discarding the handgun was “spontaneous and precipitated by the unlawful pursuit by the police” and, therefore, the handgun should have been suppressed … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 05940, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE LOST WAGES AS PART OF THE DAMAGES IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE DISSENT DISAGREED AND WOULD HAVE VACATED THE AWARD FOR LOST WAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed the award of money damages to claimant for personal injury. The claim did not specifically request lost wages as damages. The majority held the claim was not jurisdictionally deficient and the specific items of damage need not have been spelled out. The dissenter disagreed and argued the award for lost wages should be vacated:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction with respect to damages for past and future lost wages inasmuch as the facts alleged by claimant “were sufficient to apprise [defendant] of the general nature of the claim and to enable it to investigate the matter” … .

The plain language of the statute requires a claimant to specify “the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained” and, “except in[, inter alia,] action[s] to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the total sum claimed” (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]). Contrary to the view of our dissenting colleague, a natural reading of the statute requires a claimant to specify the items of damage to property or injuries to a person for which the claimant seeks compensation. Here, claimant sufficiently specified the nature of the claim, the time when and the place where the claim arose, and the injuries claimed to have been sustained, i.e., “injuries to his shoulder, bicep, and elbow” … . Inasmuch as this is an action for damages for personal injury, claimant was not required to specify, in total or itemized by category, his claimed items of damage … . Damages sought by claimant for medical expenses or lost wages are matters for the bill of particulars. Donahue v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05948, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s manslaughter conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The defendant had been alone with the victim, his girlfriend’s 13-month-old son, for a short time on the day the baby vomited and was gasping for breath (May 2). The baby died hours later at the hospital. Blunt force head trauma was deemed the cause of death. The defendant was not arrested until four years later after mother had unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant admit to harming the child in recorded phone conversations. The medical examiner testified on direct that the baby was injured on May 2. But on cross the medical examiner acknowledged the baby could have been injured on May 1, when defendant had no contact with the baby. Other people had access to the baby on May 1, but they were not interviewed because the medical examiner had told the investigators the injuries occurred on May 2:

The only evidence adduced at trial that was not within the knowledge of the police in 2010, when they decided not to arrest defendant, was the testimony of a woman who dated him from 2008 to 2013, with a one-year break in 2010 when he dated [the baby’s mother]. The witness testified that, in the years following the victim’s death, defendant would sometimes talk about the victim and become emotional but would say that he was not guilty and “didn’t do it.” When questioned by the prosecutor about a written statement she had given to the police, the witness testified that defendant “admitted to doing something to the baby but he never said what or why.” On cross-examination, the witness testified that defendant, whom she had not dated for years, never admitted that he harmed the victim. All in all, the witness’ testimony was of only marginal probative value.

Given the equivocal medical evidence with respect to the time frame within which the fatal injuries could have been inflicted, the weakness of the circumstantial evidence, and the lack of direct evidence that defendant caused the victim’s injuries, we conclude that the People failed to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Gonzalez, 2019 NY Slip Op 05947, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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