You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005 SURGERY AND THE 2010 SURGERY WERE DISCRETE EVENTS; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action based upon a 2005 thyroid surgery by the same doctor who performed the 2010 thyroid surgery was time-barred. The two surgeries were discrete events and the statute of limitations was not tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

Defendants established that [the 2005] claims are time-barred inasmuch as more than 2½ years elapsed between the date of the alleged conduct and the commencement of the action … , and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not treat with Dr. Chahfe in relation to the 2005 surgery after her final follow-up appointment in 2005, and that she did not return to Dr. Chahfe until 2010. The surgical procedures in 2005 and 2010 were ” discrete and complete’ events that cannot be linked by way of the continuous treatment doctrine” … , and there was no evidence of anticipated further treatment related to the 2005 procedure at the time plaintiff left Dr. Chahfe’s care in 2005 … . Angelhow v Chahfe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05437, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not eliminate questions of fact in this traffic accident case about whether the emergency doctrine applied. Defendant was behind plaintiffs’ motorcycle when a vehicle (operated by Buck) ran a stop sign, broadsided a truck (operated by Matthew) which then collided with the motorcycle. There was evidence defendant’s vehicle then struck the motorcycle. Defendant testified she saw the Buck vehicle approaching the stop sign and thought it was going too fast to stop, The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant should have slowed down at that point:

In determining whether the actions of a driver are reasonable in light of an emergency situation, both the driver’s awareness of the situation and his or her actions prior to the occurrence of the emergency must be considered … . Here, defendant’s deposition testimony established that she saw Buck’s car on the access road approaching the stop sign “very, very fast,” “like he was still on the Thruway,” and that she also observed Matthew’s pick-up truck approaching the intersection. Defendant was “very conscious . . . because [she knew] there [were] a lot of accidents that happen on this road because people do not pay attention to the stop sign at that [a]ccess [r]oad,” and she “start[ed] to get nervous” that Buck’s vehicle was moving too fast to stop for the stop sign. Despite defendant’s awareness that the intersection presented a particular danger and her observations of Buck’s vehicle, however, defendant did not slow down, move over, or apply her brakes until after she saw Buck’s vehicle “smash into the truck.” At that point, defendant did not know where the motorcycle was in relation to her minivan. We thus conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant, in taking no evasive action and in making no effort to slow down, or move over, or otherwise attempt to avert the impending collision, responded reasonably under the circumstances … . Gilkerson v Buck, 2019 NY Slip Op 05435, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

,

STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT IN A CLOSED ROOM AT THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED AND CONFRONTED WITH HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED, HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, on an appeal by the People in this child sexual contact case, determined defendant’s statement, made during a controlled phone conversation with the mother of the child, should not have been suppressed. The Fourth Department further found that statements made by the defendant during interrogation at the sheriff’s office should not have been suppressed because the defendant was not in custody at the time of the interrogation:

… [W]e conclude that the mother “did not make a threat [or a promise] that would create a substantial risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself”… . We further conclude that the controlled call did not constitute an unconstitutionally coercive police tactic; nor were the tactics employed by the mother during the call unconstitutionally coercive (see generally CPL 60.45 [2] [b] [ii] …), and “[d]eceptive police stratagems in securing a statement need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or that a promise or threat was made that could induce a false confession’ ” … . …

… [A]lthough defendant’s interview occurred at the Sheriff’s Office, that fact “does not necessarily mean that he is to be considered in custody’ ” … . Defendant voluntarily agreed to meet the investigators at the Sheriff’s Office and arranged for his own transportation to and from the interview … . When defendant arrived, the investigators informed him that he was free to leave … . In fact, defendant left the Sheriff’s Office at the conclusion of the interview despite making inculpatory statements. Further, defendant was not restrained during the interview, and the door to the interview room was unlocked … . Although the investigators confronted defendant with the statements that he made during the controlled call, the fact that the questioning may have turned accusatory in nature did not render the interview custodial given the other circumstances present in this case … . People v Morris, 2019 NY Slip Op 05264, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , ,

RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE ARGUMENT SURVIVES THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASSERT THE DEPRIVATION INFECTED THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined restitution should not have been ordered because it was not part of the plea agreement. The court noted that defendant’s argument he was deprived of his right to counsel with respect to his decision to testify before the grand jury was not forfeited by his guilty plea, but was encompassed by his waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department declined to follow a 3rd Department decision which held a deprivation-of-counsel argument survives a waiver of appeal irrespective of whether the deprivation infected the guilty plea. Here defendant did not assert that the alleged deprivation of his right to counsel infected the plea bargaining process or tainted the voluntariness of the plea:

Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution because restitution was not part of the plea agreement survives both his guilty plea and his unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, defendant preserved his contention for appellate review by objecting to the imposition of restitution on the same ground he now advances … . On the merits, it is undisputed that the plea bargain did not include restitution, and the court therefore erred in awarding restitution without affording defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Richardson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05310, Second Dept 6-28-19

 

,

DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion when it failed to grant mother’s request for an adjournment:

The record demonstrates that the mother presented a valid and specific reason for her inability to attend the hearing well before the hearing date and supported her request for an adjournment, which was her first, with a letter from her inpatient provider. Further, although the mother’s counsel appeared on her behalf at the hearing, the record supports the mother’s contention that she was prejudiced by her inability to provide testimony at the hearing. The court denied the adjournment based on its general desire to effect a quick and efficient resolution of this matter. There was, however, no evidence that the child would have been harmed by an adjournment. Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 2019 NY Slip Op 05289, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENSE COUNSEL RELIED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defense counsel was ineffective because defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to the speedy trial statute. Defense counsel was aware of the correct dates, but only argued defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and did not correct County Court’s erroneous time calculation:

Although defense counsel set forth the pertinent dates of the commencement of the action and defendant’s arraignment, at which time the People announced their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), he failed to argue that the relevant period exceeded six months and was a clear violation of defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights. Instead, defense counsel focused on the constitutional speedy trial claim. At oral argument of the motion, the court addressed the statutory speedy trial claim, set forth the pertinent dates, and then stated that, according to its calculation, “without specifically crunching the numbers, but by estimates, that is a period of five months and seven days.” After addressing the circumstances of the superceding indictment and the constitutional speedy trial claim, the court asked defense counsel if there were “any fact[s] that would be pertinent that [it] did not recite in discussing the matter.” Instead of pointing out the court’s erroneous calculation of the statutory speedy trial period, defense counsel stated, “I think my motion was essentially based on the 30.20 Constitutional speedy trial . . .” … . …

Here, although, as noted, defense counsel made a speedy trial claim, we conclude that there was no strategic or legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s failure to alert the court that it had inaccurately calculated that only five months and seven days had passed between the commencement of the action and the People’s statement of readiness and that, instead, more than six months had elapsed … . People v Bloodworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 05284, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the  public trust doctrine applied to town easements such that the easements could not be conveyed to a developer without legislative approval. The court further held that the Open Meetings Law was not violated by posting relevant documents only seven hours before the town meeting:

… “[A] parcel of property may become a park by express provisions in a deed . . . or by implied acts, such as continued use [by the municipality] [*2]of the parcel as a park” … . “A party seeking to establish . . . an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that (1) [t]he acts and declarations of the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his [or her] land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use” … .

… [P]etitioner alleged in its petition-complaint that the Town Easements were part of the “Auburn Trail linear park” and that they were parkland for purposes of the public trust doctrine. In support of that part of each motion seeking to dismiss the second cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), respondents submitted the conveyances that created the Town Easements. Inasmuch as those instruments provided that the Town Easements were to be used as a “pedestrian pathway” for “public use” and required the Town to restore the easement property to “a park like condition” after construction of the pedestrian pathway, respondents’ own documentary evidence creates issues of fact whether there was an express or implied dedication of the Town Easements subject to the public trust doctrine. Thus, respondents failed to meet their burden of submitting documentary evidence that conclusively refuted petitioner’s allegations … . In addition, deeming the material allegations of the petition-complaint to be true, we conclude that “the allegations in the second cause of action presented a justiciable controversy sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment,” and thus respondents were not entitled to dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Matter of Clover/Allen’s Cr. Neighborhood Assn. LLC v M&F, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05280, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

,

IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s answer to the investigator’s asking where defendant resided, for which no CPL 710.30 notice was provided, was not pedigree information and should not have been admitted in evidence. The drug-possession charge was founded on constructive possession. Therefore asking defendant where he resided was designed to elicit an incriminating response. The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant also contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence an oral statement of defendant regarding his address for which no CPL 710.30 notice had been given. The statement at issue was defendant’s response to a question about where he resided, and it was made to one of the principal investigators, who had executed a search warrant at the home of defendant’s parents. As the People correctly concede, defendant’s statement regarding his address was not pedigree information for which no CPL 710.30 notice was required … because, under the circumstances of this case, the investigator’s question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crime[] charged” … . The court thus erred in admitting the statement in evidence in the absence of a CPL 710.30 notice … . People v Tucker, 2019 NY Slip Op 05274, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , , ,

CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action alleging negligence and inverse condemnation stemming from toxic contamination of the vicinity of a defunct factory was properly dismissed because the allegations did not specify when the alleged injuries occurred:

The State of New York is sovereign and has consented to be sued only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 8 …). Among those requirements is the claimant’s duty to allege “the time when [the] claim arose” … . The requirements of section 11 (b) are jurisdictional in nature … , and the failure to satisfy them mandates dismissal of the claim without regard to whether the State was prejudiced … or had access to the requisite information from its own records … . As the Court of Appeals has explained, the State is not required “to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege” … . …

Here, although claimants adequately specified when defendant’s negligent acts allegedly occurred, they failed to supply any dates or ranges of dates regarding their alleged injuries, such as when they were exposed to toxins, when they developed symptoms, when they sought treatment, or when they were diagnosed with an illness. Instead, claimants alleged only the dates of their residence in Geneva and the dates when news of the contamination became public. Claimants’ allegations are insufficient to enable defendant to adequately investigate the claims in order to ascertain its liability, if any. Given claimants’ failure to provide any dates regarding their alleged injuries, defendant could not realistically differentiate between those injuries attributable to toxic exposure and those injuries attributable to other causes. We therefore conclude that claimants failed to adequately plead when the claims arose for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Consequently, the court properly dismissed the claims as jurisdictionally defective … . Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 05271, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , ,

NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO ALLEGATION EMPLOYEES WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, NO ALLEGATION MALICE WAS DEFENDANT’S SOLE MOTIVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s negligent hiring and supervision and prima facie tort causes of action should have been dismissed. The lawsuit alleged defendant insurer failed to pay claims for medical care submitted by plaintiff:

“An 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” … . Here, plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision or retention is based on the factual allegations that defendant’s employees denied or delayed the payment of claims to plaintiff and sent repetitive verification demands, and that defendant was aware of what its employees were doing and continued to employ them. Plaintiff, however, failed to allege that those acts were committed outside the scope of the employees’ employment. Plaintiff also failed to allege how the employees’ alleged acts of denying claims and sending verification demands constituted acts of negligence. …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence’ to injure [the] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intended harm by repeatedly sending plaintiff duplicitous requests for verification forms to be completed. Those conclusory statements in the amended complaint, however, fail to allege “a malicious [act] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of another” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of the cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … , which “must be alleged with sufficient particularity to identify actual losses and be related causally to the alleged tortious acts” … , but the injuries alleged by plaintiff are “couched in broad and conclusory terms” … , and do not constitute “specific and measurable loss” stated with particularity … . Walden Bailey Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 05267, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

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