You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

GAP IN BATHROOM STALL DOOR AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, IN WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS PINCHED AND PARTIALLY SEVERED WHEN THE DOOR SLAMMED SHUT, WAS NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the gap in a bathroom stall door at a McDonald’s restaurant, in which infant plaintiff’s finger was pinched and partially severed when her brother slammed the door, was not an unreasonably dangerous condition. In addition, the court found the condition was open and obvious and there was no duty to warn. The dissent noted the testimony that McDonald’s now installs finger guards which raised questions of fact whether defendants were on notice the door presented an unreasonably dangerous condition:

Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the stall door did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . The affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert was ” speculative and not sufficiently probative to defeat defendant[s’] motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, we conclude that the alleged hazard posed by the bathroom stall door was also open and obvious, and therefore defendants had no duty to warn that the door presented a finger-pinching hazard … . Christopher J.G. v Derico of E. Amherst Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT REFLECT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged her bowel was perforated during surgery. The defense expert testified the bowel must be fully inspected as it is replaced, section by section. However, defendant surgeon testified he did not fully inspect the bowel. In addition the jury was asked to determine whether the bowel was subjected to a “focused inspection.” However there was no trial evidence equating a “focused inspection” with the standard of care. A new trial was necessary:

The weight of the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiff due, in no small part, to defendant’s testimony that he not only failed to perform a “focused inspection” of the bowel, but that “[he could not] not observe it” as he returned it into plaintiff’s abdomen. In not “observing” the bowel, defendant plainly could not have conducted a careful visualization of the body part as it was returned to plaintiff’s body; therefore he was plainly not performing a “focused inspection.” Defendant also admitted that “[he] didn’t specifically look for [bruising]” of the bowel, which his own expert testified is required when inspecting the bowel during an aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Defendant also testified that he only looked at the bowel’s top side. Although his expert did not testify that defendant was personally required to view the other side, she did explain that the other surgeon in the operating room must view that side so that both surgeons, collectively, can view the entire bowel. Defendant did not testify that he ensured that the assisting surgeon carefully viewed the back side of the bowel, segment by segment. Moreover, the assisting surgeon did not testify that defendant instructed her to do so. Inasmuch as defendant’s conduct does not meet the standard articulated by the expert witnesses, we conclude that the evidence so preponderates in plaintiff’s favor that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict … Monzon v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, ,

A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, THEREFORE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DID NOT TESTIFY WERE ADMISSIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined father’s right to confront witnesses in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding was not violated by the admission in evidence of two documents written by a psychiatrist who did not testify. A Family Court proceeding is civil in nature and the Confrontation Clause applies only in criminal matters:

Although the father’s contention is framed in terms of a violation of his right to confront the witnesses against him, “Family Court matters are civil in nature and the Confrontation Clause applies only to criminal matters” … . In addition, while every litigant has a right, guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions, to confront the witnesses against them … , “this right is not absolute” in civil actions … . The Family Court Act permits the admission of hearsay at dispositional hearings if such evidence is “material and relevant” … . Here, because the father did not object to either the relevancy or materiality of the challenged exhibits, we conclude that the exhibits were properly admitted in evidence … . Matter of Ramon F. (Wilson F.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04852, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION DID NOT ALLEGE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF HARASSMENT SECOND DEGREE AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the portion of the family-offense petition which charged harassment in the second degree was properly dismissed because it did not allege all the elements of the offense:

A person commits harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.26 (3) when he or she, “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person[,] engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose” … . Thus, “[t]o be viable under the circumstances here, the [petition was] required to allege that respondent[, inter alia,] engaged in a course of conduct that did alarm or seriously annoy petitioner and the conduct served no legitimate purpose” … . Although the petition before us accuses respondent of engaging in a course of conduct that annoyed and alarmed petitioner, nowhere does it allege that respondent’s alleged course of conduct “serve[d] no legitimate purpose” (§ 240.26 [3]). Thus, the petition does not adequately plead an allegation that respondent committed harassment in the second degree under section 240.26 (3), and the court therefore properly dismissed the petition to that extent … . Matter of Rohrback v Monaco, 2019 NY Slip Op 04851, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

SENTENCING COURT MUST DIRECT THE MANNER IN WHICH RESTITUTION IS TO BE PAID, MATTER REMITTED, ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the sentencing court’s failure to direct how the restitution is to be paid required remittal. This illegal sentence issue is not foreclosed by a waiver of appeal or the failure to preserve the issue:

… [T]here is merit to defendant’s contention that the restitution component of his sentence must be vacated because the court failed to direct the manner of payment, in violation of CPL 420.10 (1). Defendant’s contention is a challenge to the legality of the sentence and thus survives his waiver of the right to appeal … and, based upon “the essential nature of the right to be sentenced as provided by law,” we review that contention notwithstanding defendant’s failure to raise it at sentencing … . Although we affirm the amount of restitution ordered by the court, we modify the judgment by vacating that part of the sentence ordering restitution … , and we remit the matter to County Court to fix the manner in which the restitution is to be paid. People v Lamagna, 2019 NY Slip Op 04849, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE VICTIM-AGE AND TIME-PERIOD ELEMENTS OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child. Essentially the People did not present evidence to support the assaults occurred before the victim turned 13 or during a period of less than three months (statutory criteria):

Without narrowing the time frame, it is entirely possible that the testified-to instances of anal sexual conduct that allegedly occurred at that residence happened before the statute’s effective date or after the victim turned 13 years old. The People also failed to establish that the criminal conduct occurred over a period of time not less than three months in duration (see Penal Law §§ 130.96, 130.75 [1]). In short, there were no “markers” in the evidence at trial about when the conduct occurred that would allow the jury to conclude that defendant committed predatory sexual assault against a child at the relevant time … . People v Partridge, 2019 NY Slip Op 04848, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ISSUE THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ITS REPLY PAPERS AND THE JUDGE IS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS IS NOT DISPOSITIVE ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped over a wheelchair scale in a hallway of defendant’s nursing home. The Fourth Department noted that the issue was preserved for appeal despite the absence from the record of the memorandum which raised the issue. The issue was addressed in defendant’s reply papers and noted in the court’s written decision. The Fourth Department held that the scale was not an open and obvious hazard as a matter of law and the fact that the scale was alleged to have been in compliance with the National Fire Prevention Associations’s Life Safety Code would not be dispositive on the issue of negligence:

… [P]laintiff’s contention that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment is properly before us inasmuch as it involves a “question of law appearing on the face of the record . . . [that] could not have been avoided by the opposing party if brought to that party’s attention in a timely manner” … . …

… [T]he facts here simply do not warrant concluding as a matter of law that the [wheelchair scale] was so obvious that it would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer, so as to make any warning superfluous’ ” and to support a conclusion that it was not a hazard as a matter of law … . …

Defendant also did not meet its initial burden on the motion by submitting the deposition testimony of one of its employees, who opined that the wheelchair scale was in compliance with the National Fire Prevention Association’s Life Safety Code, 2000 Edition (Code). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s employee was qualified to render an opinion concerning defendant’s compliance with the Code … , we conclude that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because it is well settled that “compliance with regulations or a building code is not dispositive on the issue of negligence” … . Rivera v Rochester Gen. Health Sys., 2019 NY Slip Op 04835, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

PRIVATE COLLEGE DID NOT ADHERE TO ITS PUBLISHED RULES AND GUIDELINES AND FAILED TO INFORM PETITIONER-STUDENT OF HIS RIGHT TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO HIS ACCUSER, DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Supreme Court, determined petitioner-student was not afforded his due process rights in proceedings brought by a private college (Hamilton) stemming from allegations petitioner had violated the college’s sexual misconduct policy (Policy). Petitioner was not informed of his right to submit questions to his accuser:

Here, the parties agree that respondents did not have to afford petitioner a hearing under either Education Law § 6444 (5) (b) (ii) or the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The parties further agree that petitioner did not have a right to confront or cross-examine witnesses against him … . Nevertheless, the College was required to ensure that its published rules were “substantially observed”… . This the College did not do.

At oral argument on the petition in Supreme Court and in their brief on appeal, respondents asserted that the Policy permits accused students to ask questions of accusers or witnesses in writing. …

Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to ask questions of an accuser or witness is a significant and critical right (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 295 [1973]), we conclude that respondents’ failure to inform petitioner that he had such a right establishes that they did not substantially adhere to the College’s own published rules and guidelines requiring them to inform petitioner, i.e., the “individual whose conduct is alleged to have violated th[e] Policy,” of all of the campus judicial rules and procedures. We therefore reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, grant the petition, annul the determinations that petitioner violated the College’s Policy and direct respondents to adhere to the College’s published rules and guidelines in any future proceeding against petitioner related to the incident reports. Matter of A.E. v Hamilton Coll., 2019 NY Slip Op 04833, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

2003 DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, THE CASE WAS ON APPEAL WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED AN INTENTIONAL MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM WITH A WEAPON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a 2003 murder depraved indifference murder conviction must be reversed because the case was on appeal when the law of depraved indifference murder was clarified to exclude the intentional murder of a single victim with a weapon:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence establishes that defendant accosted decedent, who was leaving a grocery store. Defendant, who told police investigators he had been informed that decedent had been sent by another man to injure defendant, confronted decedent, grabbed him by either his clothing or by a gold necklace that he was wearing, and dragged him across the street. A friend of decedent’s attempted to intervene at some point, at which time defendant displayed a weapon and attempted to shoot the friend, but the gun did not fire. Defendant struck decedent in the face with the handgun, and decedent’s friend ran to his car and drove it toward the location where defendant was with decedent. Defendant then fired the weapon approximately eight times. At least six of those shots hit decedent, including two shots that entered his back, and two shots hit the car that decedent’s friend was driving. …

In his motion for a trial order of dismissal with respect to the count of depraved indifference murder, defense counsel argued that defendant’s “conduct was intentional or it was nothing at all. If this isn’t intentional I don’t know what is.” Thus, the issue raised on this de novo appeal was presented to Supreme Court and is therefore preserved for our review.

Next, although defendant was convicted before the Court of Appeals decided People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006]), which definitively stated for the first time that the depraved indifference element of depraved indifference murder is a culpable mental state rather than the circumstances under which the killing is committed, the People correctly concede that the Feingold standard applies to this appeal inasmuch as defendant’s direct appeal was pending when Feingold was decided … . People v Parris, 2019 NY Slip Op 04828, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

RE: A JUVENILE OFFENDER, THE SURCHARGE AND CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED, AND THE CONSECUTIVE 2 TO 6 SENTENCES ARE ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined, because defendant is a juvenile offender, the surcharge and crime victim assistance fee must be vacated and the two consecutive 2 to 6 year sentences were illegal:

The People correctly concede in each appeal that the surcharge and crime victim assistance fee must be vacated because defendant is a juvenile offender ( … Penal Law §§ 60.00 [2]; 60.10 …). We therefore modify the adjudication in each appeal accordingly.

The People further correctly concede in each appeal that the aggregate duration of the two consecutive sentences, i.e., 2 to 6 years, is illegal (see Penal Law §§ 60.02 [2]; 70.00 [2] [e]; [3] [b] …), and that defendant’s challenge to the illegal sentence in each appeal survives his waiver of his right to appeal and does not require preservation … . People v Antonio J., 2019 NY Slip Op 04826, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

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