You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner was not entitled to the surplus proceeds after a tax foreclosure sale:

We reject petitioners’ contention that they have a right to the surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale. As respondent correctly contends, petitioners’ application for surplus proceeds was improperly predicated upon provisions of RPAPL article 13 that apply to surplus monies arising from the sale of property in mortgage foreclosure proceedings (see e.g.RPAPL 1361 [1]). RPAPL article 13, entitled “Action to Foreclose a Mortgage,” does not apply to properties acquired by a tax district pursuant to an in rem foreclosure proceeding under RPTL article 11. Thus, petitioners’ reliance on RPAPL article 13 and cases involving mortgage foreclosures is misplaced … . …

Moreover, petitioners are not entitled to surplus proceeds under RPTL article 11. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion that RPTL article 11 is “silent” regarding any remaining interest that former property owners may have, such as entitlement to surplus proceeds upon the sale of the property following a default judgment of foreclosure, the statute provides that, when property owners neither redeem the property nor interpose an answer, the tax district is entitled to a deed conveying an estate in fee simple absolute and the property owners are “barred and forever foreclosed of all . . . right, title, interest, claim, lien or equity of redemption” that they may have had in the property (RPTL 1136 [3] …). Where the tax district obtains a valid default judgment of foreclosure, which is presumed here given that the default judgment is not subject to challenge on this appeal, the formr property owners are not “entitled to any compensation upon the resale of the property” … , and the tax district may “retain . . . the entire proceeds from [the re]sale” … . Matter of Hoge v Chautauqua County, 2019 NY Slip Op 04821, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

THE STATUTE WHICH CRIMINALIZES AN ASSAULT ON A PERSON 65 OR OLDER BY A PERSON MORE THAN TEN YEARS YOUNGER DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF THE ASSAILANT KNEW THE AGE OF THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the statute which criminalizes a younger person’s causing injury to a person 65 or older does not require proof that attacker know the victim is 65 or older:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [12]). The conviction arises out of a physical altercation that occurred when defendant and his friend encountered the victim in the parking lot of a tavern shortly after the victim interacted with the friend’s girlfriend at the bar. At the time of the altercation, defendant was 31 years old and the victim was 69 years old. Defendant contends that County Court erred in determining that Penal Law § 120.05 (12) did not require the People to prove that he knew that the victim was 65 years of age or older. We reject that contention. * * *

Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, nothing in the statutory text requires that the actor know the age of the injured person; rather, by providing that the defendant must act “[w]ith intent to cause physical injury to a person who is [65] years of age or older” and must cause “such injury to such person,” the statute simply requires that the person whom the actor intentionally injures be, as a matter of fact, 65 years of age or older (§ 120.05 [12] [emphasis added]). That reading is consistent with the pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, which provide that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with respect to the age element, the injured person was 65 years of age or older at the time of the crime (see CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 120.05 [12]) . People v Burman, 2019 NY Slip Op 04820, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR DISCUSSION WITH A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; UPON RETRIAL AN ADULT WITNESS SHOULD NOT TESTIFY WHILE ACCOMPANIED BY A THERAPY DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not waive his right to be present when a prospective juror told the judge and attorneys that she was not sure she had completely answered a voir dire question. Defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge asked defense counsel if he wanted his client present and defense counsel said he was “okay with it.” The juror then said that her son was a convicted felon. The Fourth Department also held that upon retrial an adult witness should not be allowed to testify accompanied by a therapy dog:

Initially, we conclude that the situation at issue here constituted a material stage of trial inasmuch as the prospective juror volunteered information about her son’s status as a convicted felon. This information was relevant to a question asked earlier during voir dire: “Have any of you or anyone close to you been a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, been accused of a crime, or participated in any way in a criminal proceeding?” That question was intended to be relevant to, inter alia, potential bias … . …

We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant did not waive his right to be present. It is well established that a defendant has the right to be present at every material stage of a trial, including matters such as questioning prospective jurors regarding bias … . “It is equally clear, however, that such right may be voluntarily waived by a defendant or the defendant’s attorney’ ” and that “a defendant’s waiver in this regard may be either express or implied” … . Here, without defendant being physically present in the courtroom, and with counsel simply stating to the court, “I’m okay with [his absence],” we perceive no basis to conclude that there was either an implicit or explicit waiver. Defendant’s absence from the courtroom when the prospective juror raised the issue of potential bias made it impossible for him to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to be present … . People v Geddis, 2019 NY Slip Op 04819, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECLINE TO IMPUTE INCOME TO A PARENT WHO HAS VOLUNTARILY REDUCED HIS OR HER INCOME FOR A COMPELLING REASON, HERE, ALTHOUGH FATHER TOOK A LOWER PAYING JOB IN NORTH CAROLINA BECAUSE HIS WIFE TOOK A HIGHER PAYING JOB IN NORTH CAROLINA, FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS NOT REDUCED, RATHER THE COURT IMPUTED A PORTION OF THE WIFE’S NEW HIGHER INCOME TO KEEP FATHER’S OBLIGATION AT THE SAME LEVEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the court had the discretion to reduce father’s child support payments, even though father voluntarily took a lower paying job in North Carolina where his wife had found a job which increased her income by $30,000. The court’s conclusion it did not have the authority to reduce father’s child support obligation in this circumstance was itself deemed an abuse of discretion by the Fourth Department. However the Fourth Department didn’t change father’s obligation, rather it imputed some of the wife’s new higher income to the father:

… [C]ourts may decline to impute income when a parent has a voluntary reduction in income and a legitimate and reasonable basis for such a reduction … . Indeed, the general rule that “a parent who voluntarily quits a job will not be deemed without fault in losing such employment . . . should not be inflexibly applied where a parent quits a job for a sufficiently compelling reason” … . …

We thus agree with the father that the court erred when it stated that it was not permitted to reduce the father’s child support obligation even if his decision to take a lower-paying job was reasonable. …

It was undisputed that the entire reason the father left his higher-paying job in New York was so that his wife could accept a higher-salaried position in North Carolina, which resulted in a net increase in the income of his new family unit. Inasmuch as the father’s voluntary decision to leave his lucrative position for a lesser-paying position “unquestionably improved [his overall] financial condition” … , we conclude that we may impute some portion of the wife’s higher salary to the father … . Matter of Montgomery v List, 2019 NY Slip Op 04560, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) OBTAINED BY STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT MUST BE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR GAINS OR LOSSES AFTER THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE AGREED AMOUNT PLUS THE GAINS THAT HAD ACCRUED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement must be enforced as written. Because the stipulation made no provision for the transfer of gains which accrued after the divorce action started, Supreme Court erred by transferring the agreed amount plus the gains:

“A QDRO obtained pursuant to a [stipulation of settlement] can convey only those rights which the parties [agreed to] as a basis for the judgment’ ” … . Thus, “a court errs in granting a domestic relations order encompassing rights not provided in the underlying stipulation” … . A stipulation of settlement that is incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce ” is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation’ ” … . If the stipulation of settlement is ” complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face[, it] must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms’ ” … . Here, the stipulation of settlement clearly and unambiguously made no provision for plaintiff to receive gains or losses on the amount that the stipulation of settlement specified would be transferred to her. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to any gains on that amount that accrued after the divorce action commenced … . Reber v Reber, 2019 NY Slip Op 04557, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

APPEAL OF THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE STATEMENT-SUPPRESSION ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE WAS ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted: (1) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea; (2) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; (3) the statement-suppression issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; and (4) because defendant pled guilty before Supreme Court decided the constitutional speedy trial issue that issue was abandoned. People v Hardy, 2019 NY Slip Op 04555, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the test for double jeopardy under the state constitution is the same as under the federal constitution:

“Under the Federal Constitution, double jeopardy arises only upon separate prosecutions arising out of the same offence’ ” … . The United States Supreme Court employs a “same-elements” test, also known as the Blockburger test (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299 [1932]), that “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution” … . Here, the elements of DWI (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting (see § 600 [1] [a]) are not the same; among other things, a person does not need to be intoxicated to be found guilty of leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting, and does not need to cause property damage to be found guilty of DWI. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses in the State and Federal Constitutions are nearly identically worded, and we have never suggested that state constitutional double jeopardy protection differs from its federal counterpart” … , the Court of Appeals set forth the Blockburger test, not the same conduct test, when analyzing a defendant’s claim that the double jeopardy clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions barred a subsequent prosecution. We therefore conclude that the constitutional double jeopardy analysis is the same under federal and state law, and that there is no constitutional double jeopardy violation here … . Matter of McNerlin v Argento, 2019 NY Slip Op 04554, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT’S DETERMINATION THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IS NOT REVIEWABLE AFTER A CONVICTION BASED UPON LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that appellate review of a court’s determination of the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury is not reviewing upon appeal of a conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence:

Defendant’s contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the operability of the stun gun is not preserved for our review inasmuch as her motion for a trial order of dismissal was not ” specifically directed’ at [that] alleged” deficiency in the proof … . In any event, the evidence, which included the testimony of a firearms examiner who tested the device at issue, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , is legally sufficient to support the conviction. …

County Court’s determination with respect to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is “not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6] …). People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04553, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

COUNTY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS TO PRESSURE HER NOT TO TESTIFY, THE WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly determined the defendant pressured a witness to refuse to testify at trial. Therefore the witness’s grand jury testimony was properly admitted in evidence:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in determining, following a Sirois hearing, that the People presented clear and convincing evidence that defendant “wrongfully made use of his relationship with the victim in order to pressure her to violate her duty to testify” … . …

The People presented evidence that the missing witness was ready and willing to testify while defendant was in jail during the grand jury proceedings but became reluctant after defendant was released and the trial date drew closer. Days prior to the trial, the witness’s mother observed the witness leave with defendant and their child for several hours. When the witness returned to the mother’s home, the witness “started talking about the subpoena that she had received. Started saying things like they can’t do anything to me if I don’t show up. The subpoena wasn’t served properly. There’s nothing that they can do if I don’t show up to court. Things of that nature.” The mother reported to the prosecutor that she had never heard the witness use legal terminology like that before. …

Defendant’s relative also observed the witness in defendant’s home during the time in which law enforcement officers were attempting to locate her on a material witness warrant. Further, although the prosecution never informed the witness of the updated trial schedule following the witness’s failure to appear, the witness appeared at court two days after the Sirois hearing “at the perfect moment to save defendant from the impending admission of her damning grand jury testimony” … . People v Haile, 2019 NY Slip Op 04547, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant, although handcuffed and seated on the backseat of a police car, was not in custody such that his answers to questions, including whether he had anything to drink, should be suppressed. The officer observed defendant commit several traffic infractions, then the defendant got out of the car, staggering. The defendant would not stop and go back to his car when the officer told him to. When the officer caught up to him he smelled alcohol. The officer then handcuffed the defendant and had him sit on the backseat of the police car with his feet outside the car on the ground:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his answers to the sergeant’s questions were not the product of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. ” It is well established that not every forcible detention constitutes an arrest’ ” … and, under the circumstances noted above, we agree with the court that the sergeant’s use of handcuffs did not transform the detention into a de facto arrest. Rather, the sergeant’s use of the handcuffs to effect the detention was warranted in light of the threat that defendant might take additional evasive action … .

We further conclude that seating defendant on the back seat of the police vehicle did not transform the sergeant’s questioning into a custodial interrogation. The sergeant lawfully, although forcibly, detained defendant for investigatory purposes based on his observation of defendant committing several traffic infractions … . Given defendant’s visible intoxication, staggering gait, and prior evasive actions, a ” less intrusive means of fulfilling the police investigation’ ” than seating defendant partially in the police vehicle ” was not readily apparent’ ” … . Here, the sergeant’s “action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant’s liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest” … . In addition, the sergeant’s questions were investigatory rather than custodial in nature … . People v Mcdonald, 2019 NY Slip Op 04546, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

SUPPRESS SUPPRESSION

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