You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE FRONT PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE USE OF THE LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ adverse possession affirmative defense should have been granted. The disputed land is a so-called stub trail which allows access to a lake and which is owned by a third-party (Hillcrest). Defendants’ use and maintenance of the property was deemed permissive (i.e., not hostile) as the stub trails were to be used by all the property owners in the subdivision for lake access:

We agree with plaintiff that it met its initial burden on the cross motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendants’ use of the disputed property was not hostile and instead was permissive … , and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . The hostility element “is satisfied where an individual asserts a right to the property that is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner’ ” … . ” Possession is hostile when it constitutes an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner’s rights’ ” … . However, “[w]hen the entry upon land has been by permission or under some right or authority derived from the owner, adverse possession does not commence until such permission or authority has been repudiated and renounced and the possessor thereafter has assumed the attitude of hostility to any right in the real owner” … . “The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the unequivocal acts of the usurper’ ” … . …

The … deed demonstrated that defendants’ use of the disputed property was permissive pursuant to the terms of that deed, which allowed property owners around Rushford Lake to use the stub trail at issue that was owned by Hillcrest. The acts of defendants in mowing the lawn, removing weeds, adding fill to the area, and planting trees were fully consistent with the intent of the … deed, which was to allow property owners to use the trails and stub trails and improve them when needed. The acts of defendants did not give Hillcrest a cause of action in ejectment inasmuch as Hillcrest was required under the terms of the deed to allow property owners such as defendants to use and maintain the trail … . Parklands E., LLC v Spangenberg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05849, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE VICTIM IN THIS KIDNAPPING CASE ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE COULD GO WITH HIM TO FLORIDA; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE INTENT TO VIOLATE OR ABUSE THE VICTIM MUST HAVE EXISTED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS, A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED ON THAT GROUND; BOTH THE CONCURRENCE AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE HAD BEEN NO RESTRAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the jury instruction on the intent element of kidnapping was wrong requiring reversal. Defendant, who was over 21, drove to Florida with the victim, who was 14, and had sex with her during the trip. The victim asked defendant if she could come with him and snuck out of the house without her mother’s knowledge. The concurrence argued the restraint element of kidnapping was not proven, but agreed with the majority because that element had been conceded by the defense. The dissent would have reversed and dismissed the indictment, finding the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he weight of the evidence supports a determination that defendant did not innocently acquiesce to the mere request of a 14-year-old acquaintance to drive her to Florida, but rather took advantage of a 14-year-old child’s age and inexperience, by driving the victim across multiple state lines, away from her family, in order to engage in an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. * * *

We interpret the statute to mean that kidnapping in the first degree requires that a defendant both restrain a victim for more than 12 hours and possess, for more than 12 hours during the period of restraint, the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually. Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “intent does not require advanced planning, nor is it necessary that the intent be in the person’s mind for any particular period of time.” … [W]e conclude that the instruction was erroneous inasmuch as it permitted the jury to find that the element of intent pursuant to section 135.25 (2) (a) had been established even if the jury did not find that the intent existed for more than 12 hours during a period of over 12 hours of restraint.  * * *

FROM THE DISSENT: Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant either “secreted” or “held” the victim in his car, or that he intended to prevent her “liberation.” She was there voluntarily and of her own accord, which is the very antithesis of being “secreted” or “held” somewhere. People v Vail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05848, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. There was sharply conflicting testimony about how the accident happened and whether defendant fled the scene. A witness, Stephen, who allegedly chased defendant down after the accident was not allowed to testify that defendant appeared to be intoxicated:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in excluding Stephen’s testimony that defendant exhibited indicia of intoxication during their interaction immediately after the accident and that, in his opinion, she was intoxicated. Although defendant’s failure to remain at the scene meant that Stephen was the only witness who had an opportunity to observe defendant and interact with her after the accident, the court prohibited Stephen from testifying about his observations of defendant on the ground that he was not an “expert” in signs of intoxication. Contrary to the court’s ruling, it is well settled that a lay witness may testify regarding his or her observation that another individual exhibited signs of intoxication … , and also regarding his or her opinion that another individual was intoxicated … . …

… [P]laintiffs should have been permitted to present Stephen’s testimony with respect to whether defendant appeared to be intoxicated, which would allow the jury to consider whether and to what degree alcohol impaired defendant’s senses and her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events about which she testified at trial. …

… Stephen’s proposed testimony regarding his observations of defendant, i.e., that she fumbled with her license, slurred her speech, and smelled of alcohol, was not cumulative of other evidence already before the jury … . …

Defendant testified that she did not fumble with her license, her speech was not slurred, she did not recall her eyes being “glassy,” and there was no alcohol on her breath. Thus, the excluded testimony from Stephen would have provided ” evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which [defendant] has endeavored to prove’ ” … and therefore fell within the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  Brooks v Blanchard, 2019 NY Slip Op 05847, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, and refusing to follow the 2nd Department, determined certain statements made in connection with a hospital’s (SUNY Upstate’s) quality assurance investigation were privileged pursuant to the Education Law and Public Health Law and therefore were not subject to discovery in this medical malpractice action:

“The New York State Education Law shields from disclosure the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program’ ” ( … see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2]). Although there is an exception to that privilege, “the exception is narrow” … and is limited to “statements made by any person in attendance at such a [quality assurance] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2] …).

Here, the “statements” at issue were provided shortly after the incident and were obtained as part of SUNY Upstate’s quality assurance investigation. The statements, however, were not made at a quality assurance committee meeting; nor were they made in response to any inquiries initiated by the committee … . None of the defendants appeared at any committee meeting. Thus, we agree with SUNY Upstate and defendants that plaintiff’s proposed construction of the statutory exception would not give any practical effect to the phrase “in attendance,” but rather would render that phrase meaningless … . Further, the Court of Appeals specifically instructed that the exception is “narrow and limited to statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting” … .  Following plaintiff’s proposed construction “would extend the [statutory] exception to a point where it would swallow the general rule that materials used by a hospital in quality review and malpractice prevention programs are strictly confidential” … . Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05464, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

,

RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE TRIAL COURT HANDLED NOTES FROM THE JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF HOLDING A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING IS MOOT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, determined the record was not sufficient to determine how the trial court handled notes from the jury and reversal was therefore required:

… [R]eversal is required as a result of ” the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30′ ” in response to two substantive jury notes … . Here, the stenographer was unable to transcribe the final day of the trial that included County Court’s handling of the jury notes due to an error that rendered the subject electronic stenographic notes unrecoverable, and a reconstruction hearing failed to establish the court’s on-the-record handling of those notes. We “cannot assume that the proper procedure was utilized when the record is devoid of information as to how jury notes were handled” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial. In light of our determination, defendant’s challenge to the propriety of holding a reconstruction hearing under these circumstances is moot, and we reject defendant’s contention that his challenge falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine … . People v Grimes, 2019 NY Slip Op 05461, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER THE RESULTING SENTENCE WAS TOO HARSH; SENTENCE REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that, although defendant met the criteria for a persistent felony offender, he should not have been sentenced as a persistent felony offense due to the nature of his prior offenses. His sentence was reduced from 15 to life to 9 to 18 years. Defendant had been offered 2 !/2 to 5 prior to trial:

… [T]he imposition of persistent felony offender status is unduly harsh and severe. The sentencing court’s determination to sentence a defendant as a persistent felony offender “cannot be held erroneous as a matter of law, unless [that] court acts arbitrarily or irrationally” … . Even where the sentencing court does not err as a matter of law in adjudicating a defendant to be a persistent felony offender, “[t]he Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” … . “In this way, the Appellate Division can and should mitigate inappropriately severe applications of the statute” … . “A determination by the Appellate Division to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding is authorized by CPL 470.20 (6), which grants the Appellate Division discretion to modify sentences in the interest of justice without deference to the sentencing court’ ” … . People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 05454, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT TO FATHER; MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ARREARS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department concluded the support magistrate should not have awarded father child support because mother and father shared custody equally and father had the greater income and assets. The Fourth Department determined, in this circumstance, mother should be awarded arrears based upon the child support she should not have been ordered to pay:

… [M]other that she is entitled to a credit against any arrears from the order for the amount of child support erroneously awarded to the father from April 2, 2015 until January 1, 2016, and we therefore remit the matter to Family Court to determine the amount of arrears and the credit to be applied thereto. Although there is a strong public policy against recoupment of child support overpayments … , we conclude that the requested credit is appropriate under the limited circumstances of this case. Here, the record establishes that the mother had significantly less income and received certain public benefits, while the father received substantial disability and pension benefits and had significant assets … . Moreover, granting the mother’s request “will not detract from [the father] fulfilling the needs of the child[ ] while [he is] in [the father’s] care” and, indeed, will relieve the mother of an erroneously-imposed financial obligation, thereby allowing her to use her funds to maintain a stable household for the child and meet his reasonable needs during visitation … . Matter of Rapp v Horbett, 2019 NY Slip Op 05447, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

, ,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT, AS PROMISED, INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE PURPOSES OF INTRODUCING HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE CHILD-VICTIM’S DISCLOSURES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT OBJECTING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that any error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the purposes for the introductions of evidence of the child-victim’s disclosure of sexual assault in 2009 and in 2014, evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible bolstering, was not preserved. The dissenters argued that the error was reversible and defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance:

From the dissent:

Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission to introduce evidence that the victim reported an incident of sexual contact with defendant to her aunt in 2009, and that she again disclosed the incident in 2014. The court concluded that the People could introduce evidence that the victim made a prompt complaint in 2009 if they laid a proper foundation establishing that the complaint was made at the first suitable opportunity, and that they could introduce evidence that the victim reported the contact in 2014 for the sole purpose of establishing how the investigative process began at that time. The court indicated that it would provide an appropriate limiting instruction if the evidence was introduced.

At trial, the People introduced evidence that the victim reported the sexual contact to her aunt in 2009 and to several other people at various times in 2014 and 2015. Nevertheless, the court did not give a limiting instruction either when the testimony was given or at the end of the case. Although we agree with the majority that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to give the promised charge, we conclude that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by that error, and we would exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. * * *

… [Defendant] was deprived of effective assistance by his attorney’s failure to object the court’s failure to give the promised limiting instruction. The majority concludes that defense counsel’s failure to preserve that issue does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance, citing People v Gross(26 NY3d 689, 696 [2016]). We respectfully disagree. In Gross, the majority of the Court of Appeals concluded that defense counsel may not have objected to the prosecutor’s comments on the evidence for tactical reasons. Here, there was no possible tactical basis for “defense counsel’s inexplicable failure to object” when the court failed to give the promised limiting instruction … . People v Hymes, 2019 NY Slip Op 05441, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED IN THEIR NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO SHUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY IN A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK WHEN HE STRIPPED INSULATION FROM AN ELECTRIC CABLE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the property owner/general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff received an electric shock when cutting away the insulation of an electric cable as part of a demolition project. Plaintiff was to make the wiring in the office safe and was going to test the voltage of the wires lying on the floor when he received the shock:

… [T]he court erroneously granted defendants’ motion with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against them insofar as that claim is predicated upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) and 23-3.2 (a) (2) and (3), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The first of those provisions of the Industrial Code states that “[n]o employer shall suffer or permit an employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that he may contact such circuit in the course of his work unless the employee is protected against electric shock by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means” (12 NYCRR 23-1.13 [b] [4] …). The latter provisions state, inter alia, that electric lines must be “shut off and capped or otherwise sealed” before any demolition project begins (12 NYCRR 23-3.2 [a] [2] …) and, if it is necessary to maintain an electric line during demolition, “such lines shall be so protected with substantial coverings or shall be so relocated as to protect them from damage and to afford protection to any person” (12 NYCRR 23-3.2 [a] [3]). Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not violate the regulations, that the regulations are not applicable to the facts of this case, or that such violation was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . We conclude that there are issues of fact whether, inter alia, defendants’ failure in their nondelegable duty to shut off the electricity was a proximate cause of the accident … . Winters v Uniland Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05440, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER, A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER WHO SLAPPED AN UNRULY STUDENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined substantial evidence supported the guilty findings on three disciplinary charges against petitioner, a driver of a school bus for special needs children. Petitioner had slapped a nine-year-old student who had become unruly. However, the majority determined the termination of the petitioner, a long-time employee with an unblemished record, was too severe a penalty. The two dissenters argued termination was appropriate:

… [I]n light of petitioner’s otherwise unblemished disciplinary record during her 20 years as a school bus driver, including five years driving special needs students, we conclude that termination, absent any other previous progressive disciplinary steps, is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock one’s sense of fairness  … . Although we are mindful of our limited role in evaluating the discipline imposed here … , we nevertheless conclude that the circumstances of this unfortunate occurrence, viewed in the specific context of petitioner’s background, establish that the harsh penalty of termination was disproportionate and shocking to our sense of fairness. Petitioner was confronted by a student who, due to his special needs, lost control of his behavior and was significantly disrupting the other students on the bus, some of whom were also struggling to behave. Petitioner’s was not premeditated and, under these circumstances, appears to be the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. There is nothing in petitioner’s employment history to suggest that she will ever engage in similar conduct again.

Although termination in these circumstances shocks our sense of fairness, we do not condone petitioner’s behavior, and only conclude that some form of discipline short of termination would be appropriate. We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and vacating the penalty imposed, and we remit the matter to respondent for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than termination … . Matter of Ansley v Jamesville-DeWitt Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 05439, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

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