You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the products liability cause of action against the manufacturer of a gas pump fuel nozzle (Husky), and the premises liability cause of action against the gas station (Kwik Fill) should have been dismissed. The plaintiff was sprayed with diesel fuel as she attempted to fill the tank in the bus (manufactured by Coach) she was driving. There was evidence that the design of the fuel system of the bus may have been the cause:

In opposition to Husky’s motion, the Coach defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert and the deposition testimony of the vice president of engineering of defendant Motor Coach Industries, Ltd. The expert opined that the accident was caused by a nozzle malfunction. He did not, however, identify any particular defect in the nozzle, which he did not inspect. We thus conclude that the expert’s opinion is based on mere speculation and is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . …

It is undisputed that the Kwik Fill defendants hired an outside vendor that regularly inspected and serviced their fuel pumps, and, in support of their motion, the Kwik Fill defendants submitted evidence establishing that the vendor determined that the fuel pumps were working properly before and after the accident, thus establishing that the Kwik Fill defendants maintained their property in a reasonably safe condition … . Menear v Kwik Fill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05845, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO FELT POLICE OFFICERS WOULD NOT LIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN DEFENDANT’S HOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and granting a new trial, determined that a defense for-cause challenge to a juror should have been granted, unwarned statements made by the defendant in his home were in response to custodial interrogation, and the statements made at the police station were made after defendant had invoked his right to counsel:

… [B]y repeatedly insisting that police officers were unlikely to lie under oath because doing so would endanger their pensions, the prospective juror “cast serious doubt on [her] ability to render a fair verdict under the proper legal standards” and to follow the court’s instructions concerning, at a minimum, issues of witness credibility … . The court was therefore “required to elicit some unequivocal assurance from the . . . prospective juror[] that [she was] able to reach a verdict based entirely upon the court’s instructions on the law” … . No such assurances were obtained from the prospective juror, …

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was ordered out of his bedroom by police officers in the middle of the night, directed to remain in a vestibule outside his apartment, and thereafter subjected to pointed, accusatory questions for about an hour. Under those circumstances, we agree with defendant that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have felt free to leave, and that he was thus in custody during the questioning … . …

… [D]efendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel by stating “I think I will take the lawyer” or “I think I need a lawyer” … . Thus, we agree with defendant that his statements following his unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel at the police station should have been suppressed as well … . People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 05844, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THE ATTORNEY HAD ATTEMPTED TO REMEDY THE FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS IN AN ESTATE MATTER AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN; ABSENCE OF AN EXPERT’S REPORT FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL PRECLUDED A RULING ON THE RELATED ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action. The attorney had attempted to remedy the failure to file objections in an estate matter after the statute had run. The Fourth Department noted that plaintiff’s expert’s report was missing from the record on appeal and therefore plaintiff was unable to argue on appeal that he had raised a related question of fact (concerning damages) before Supreme Court. Defendant had argued the damages were speculative (requiring dismissal) and Supreme Court did not rule on the issue (because the case was dismissed as untimely). The matter was remitted for a ruling on the damages issue:

We are unable to review plaintiff’s contention that he raised a triable issue of fact with respect to … damages by submitting an expert report inasmuch as plaintiff failed to include that document in the record on appeal. Thus plaintiff, as the party raising this issue on his appeal, “submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must suffer the consequences” … . …

Defendant met his burden … by establishing that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214 [6]), that the estate cause of action accrued on November 1, 2010, the last date on which to file objections to the accounting …, and that the estate cause of action was therefore untimely when this malpractice action was commenced on November 15, 2013. “The burden then shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine” … .

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. It is well settled that, in order for the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant made several unsuccessful attempts to file the objections within the weeks after the deadline and that he made preparations to appear at a scheduled conference on the objections on November 23, 2010. Those efforts could be viewed as “attempt[s] by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … , and thus plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Leeder v Antonucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 05898, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid but rejected her argument that she was exempt for SORA registration because she is the parent of the kidnapping victim, who had been adopted by a family:

The victim of the kidnapping was defendant’s biological child, who had been removed from defendant’s care more than eight years earlier following allegations of abuse concerning the victim’s sibling. Defendant surrendered her parental rights to both the victim and the victim’s sibling, and the children were adopted by a family.

“SORA defines sex offender’ to include any person who is convicted of’ any of a number of crimes listed in the statute . . . SORA requires all people included in this definition to register as sex offenders” … . The list of offenses provided in the statute includes “section 135.05, 135.10, 135.20 or 135.25 of [the Penal Law] relating to kidnapping offenses, provided the victim of such kidnapping . . . is less than seventeen years old and the offender is not the parent of the victim” … . Although we have not yet had the occasion to address whether a biological parent who has surrendered his or her parental rights and whose child has been adopted is entitled to the benefit of the parent exemption set forth in the SORA statute, in People v Brown (264 AD2d 12 [4th Dept 2000]), this Court determined that, in a prosecution for kidnapping, such a person could not assert as an affirmative defense that he or she was a relative of the victim … inasmuch as a biological parent’s status as a “parent” with respect to an adopted child was terminated ” in all respects’ ” by an order of adoption … . Applying that same reasoning here, we conclude that defendant, the biological mother of an adopted child who she kidnapped, is not a parent of the victim for the purposes of SORA, and thus defendant is not exempt from SORA registration. People v Weir, 2019 NY Slip Op 05896, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the note set forth the actual agreement between the parties:

“Because the thrust of a reformation claim is that a writing does not set forth the actual agreement of the parties, generally . . . the parol evidence rule . . . [does not] appl[y] to bar proof, in the form of parol or extrinsic evidence, of the claimed agreement” … . Nevertheless, “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifest[s] the true intention of the parties’ . . . and a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption” … . “The proponent of reformation must show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake . . . exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties’ ” … . …

… [D]efendant here set forth, in detail, the basis for his contention that both parties reached an agreement different from that set forth in the note. The affidavits of the CIO [plaintiff’s chief investment officer] and defendant contain the identical assertion that both parties—plaintiff via the CIO and defendant—agreed that plaintiff’s right to secure repayment of the loan would be limited to defendant’s stock interest … . The affidavits of the CIO and defendant are based upon personal knowledge and state in detail their understanding of the negotiations and the resulting agreement. Moreover, the CIO averred that he negotiated the loan on behalf of plaintiff at the time he was its chief investment officer, and he concluded that the terms of the note did not reflect what the parties had intended. Thus, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, we conclude that defendant submitted the requisite “high level” of proof required to raise a triable issue of fact regarding mutual mistake. Stache Invs. Corp. v Ciolek, 2019 NY Slip Op 05856, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verification of an Article 78 petition by petitioner’s attorney was valid because the attorney had first hand knowledge of the contents and, even if the verification was invalid, the respondent had waived any objection to it. The matter concerns the suspension of a school principal which had been the subject of arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration was not an obstacle to these proceedings brought pursuant to the Education Law because the issues are not the same.  The issue involved in the Article 78 petition, an interpretation of Education Law 2566 (6), was not the kind of issue which must first be brought before the Commissioner of Education:

Although the verification requirement of CPLR 7804 (d) must ordinarily be completed by a party, a verification “may be made by [a party’s] attorney [where, as here,] all the material allegations of the pleading are within the personal knowledge of . . . [that] attorney’ ” …  Moreover, a party challenging the sufficiency of a verification is required “to give notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he [or she] elect[ed]’ to treat the petition as a nullity” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the verification by petitioner’s attorney was insufficient, we conclude that respondents waived any challenge to the petition on that ground by failing to make the requisite diligent efforts and instead waiting a month before seeking dismissal of the petition on that basis … . …

… .[A]lthough Education Law § 310 provides … that any party aggrieved by an official act or decision of school authorities “may appeal by petition to the [C]ommissioner of [E]ducation,” the Commissioner exercises primary jurisdiction only where the matter involves an issue requiring his or her specialized knowledge and expertise … . Petitioner’s contention regarding section 2566, however, requires no more than the interpretation and application of the plain language of that statute for which no deference to the Department of Education is required … . Matter of Buffalo Council of Supervisors & Adm’rs, Local #10 v Cash, 2019 NY Slip Op 05895, 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