You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED SOLELY UPON THE FACT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FELONIES WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE IN NEW YORK, A QUESTION NOT RAISED BEFORE COUNTY COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s SORA designation as a sexually violent offender based upon Pennsylvania convictions as a violation of due process, but remitted the matter to Count Court for consideration of the issue under another provision of the Correction Law:

… [W]e conclude, based on the reasoning set forth by the plurality in People v Malloy (228 AD3d 1284, 1287-1291 [4th Dept 2024]), that there is no rational basis for designating defendant a sexually violent offender solely on the ground of his conviction of the Pennsylvania felony sex offenses requiring him to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction … . Defendant has therefore met his burden of showing that the imposition of the sexually violent offender designation under the second disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b), as applied to him, violates his constitutional right to substantive due process. Consequently, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and vacate that designation.

However, we note that the issue whether the essential elements of any of the Pennsylvania felonies were the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York under the essential elements test set out in the first disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) was never raised before County Court. We decline to consider that alternative basis for affirmance, sua sponte, for the first time on appeal … . We therefore remit to County Court to consider whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies includes all of the essential elements of a sexually violent offense set forth in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a) … . People v Boldorff, 2025 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: A sexually-violent-offender designation based solely upon the fact defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Pennsylvania was deemed unconstitutional here. But the matter was remitted for a determination whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies would have constituted a sexually violent offense in New York.​

 

,

THE BULLET CASINGS IN EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM A PISTOL OR A RIFLE; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL AND THE JURY WAS SO INSTRUCTED; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A PISTOL, AS OPPOSED TO A RIFLE, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove defendant possessed a “pistol” as opposed to a “rifle” at the time of the shooting. There was video evidence showing a muzzle flash from the area in the car where defendant was sitting, but the weapon could not be seen. Because the indictment and the jury instructions charged defendant with possession of a “pistol,” the conviction could not stand:

… [T]he indictment and the jury charge specifically narrowed the theory of the case to require the People to establish that defendant possessed a loaded pistol at the time in question. Here, the evidence permitted, at best, mere speculation that the firearm defendant allegedly possessed was a pistol, and not a rifle. Video footage of the shooting shows multiple muzzle flashes indicative of gunfire from the vehicle—it does not directly depict the firearm that is firing the shots. Moreover, the angle of the video does not permit an observer to make any reasonable inferences about what type of firearm is being fired at the relevant time. Nothing in the video establishes that the firearm being fired was a pistol rather than another type of firearm. People v Brumfield, 2025 NY Slip Op 00764, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: The People are held to the theory presented in the indictment and charged to the jury. Since the indictment charged defendant with illegal possession of a pistol and the jury was so charged, the People’s failure to prove the type of firearm defendant possessed required reversal of the conviction.

 

, ,

THE WARRANT REQUIRED THE SEIZED CELL PHONE BE “RETURNED TO THE COURT;” INSTEAD THE CELL PHONE WAS TURNED OVER TO A CYBERSECURITY CENTER WHICH CONDUCTED A FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND MEMORY EXTRACTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate her manslaughter conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been granted. The search of defendant’s cell phone far exceeded the scope of the warrant. The warrant required that the seized cell phone be “returned to the court.” Instead the phone was turned over to a cybersecurity and forensics center where a forensic examination and memory extraction was conducted. A considerable amount of trial evidence was gleaned from the cell phone. Defense counsel did not move to suppress the cell-phone evidence:

We agree with defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as defense counsel failed to properly move to suppress the evidence obtained from her cell phone. “[I]ndiscriminate searches pursuant to general warrants ‘were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment’ ” … . A person’s cell phone now contains at least as much personal and private information as their home and, thus, indiscriminate searches of cell phones cannot be permitted … . As defendant correctly contends, the forensic examination and memory extraction of her cell phone’s contents exceeded the scope of the warrant, which only authorized OCSO to seize the cell phone and return it to the court … . Furthermore, the warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement inasmuch as it, inter alia, did not “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Thus, we conclude that defendant “established that a motion to suppress would likely be successful, and that defense counsel had no strategic or other legitimate explanation for not moving to suppress the evidence” … . People v Conley, 2025 NY Slip Op 00597, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: The Fourth Department noted that the search of a cell phone can reveal as much information as the search of a home. To be valid, a cell -phone search must be confined to the terms of the warrant, and the warrant must specify the items to be seized by their relation to the crimes.

 

,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON “BLACK ICE” DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE ICE WAS NOT VISIBLE; THIS SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there was a question of fact whether the “black ice” in the parking lot was visible such that defendant had constructive notice of its presence:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [a] defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In moving for summary judgment, defendants argued, and the court agreed, that they did not have constructive notice inasmuch as plaintiff slipped on black ice and thus the icy condition was not visible and apparent. Although plaintiff allegedly slipped on black ice, “that fact alone does not establish as a matter of law that the ice was not visible and apparent” … . Moreover, the fact that plaintiff did not see the ice before she fell is not dispositive of whether the condition was visible and apparent … . Here, defendants submitted excerpts from plaintiff’s deposition where she described the ice, as she observed it after she fell, as “[a] wide circle” and “a big patch” that “was the same color as the ground” and not shiny. We conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the icy condition was not visible and apparent … . Doyle v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00577, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Black ice is not invisible as a matter of law.​

 

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PROBATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the declaration of delinquency, determined the hearsay testimony of a police investigation was not sufficient to prove defendant violated the terms and conditions of a probationary sentence:

… [T]he evidence at the hearing that he committed a criminal offense while on probation consisted entirely of hearsay testimony from a police investigator. “While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, hearsay alone does not satisfy the requirement that a finding of a probation violation must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence” … . Based on this record, we conclude that County Court’s determination “was based on hearsay alone and therefore cannot stand” … . People v Hawkey, 2025 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but hearsay alone will not support revocation.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IN THIS ARSON/MURDER CASE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s arson, murder and reckless endangerment convictions, determined the trial judge should have given the circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury:

“It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant’s guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence . . . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, such a charge need not be given” … . …[T]his was not a case with ” ‘both direct and circumstantial evidence of . . . defendant’s guilt,’ ” which would negate the need for a circumstantial evidence charge … . Indeed, none of the evidence presented at trial “prove[d] directly a disputed fact without requiring an inference to be made” … .

Further, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . Although ” ‘overwhelming proof of guilt’ cannot be defined with mathematical precision” … , it necessarily requires more evidence of guilt than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If that were not so, all errors would be harmless in cases where the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence … .

Here, the strongest evidence linking defendant to the crime is the video surveillance recording. As noted, that video, which is grainy and shot from a distance, depicts a flickering or glow as defendant exits the premises, which promptly grows into a blaze as defendant walks away. There is no way to discern from the video the exact moment that the fire is set or precisely how the fire began. “In order for the jury to find defendant guilty it had to make a number of logical leaps connecting defendant to the crimes charged. Had the trial court given the circumstantial evidence charge, alerting the jury of the need to exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” we conclude that the verdict may have been different … . People v Exford, 2025 NY Slip Op 00536, Fourth Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: In this arson and murder case, the failure to give the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction warranted a new trial. The jury was required to make several “logical leaps,” based upon grainy video evidence showing defendant walking away from a building which caught fire, to convict.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against an attorney (Moore) for “deceit and collusion” within the meaning of Judiciary Law 487:

Judiciary Law § 487 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In essence, the statute “imposes liability for the making of false statements with scienter” … . However, “Judiciary Law § 487 is not a codification of common-law fraud and therefore does not require a showing of justifiable reliance” … . Stated another way, “liability under the statute does not depend on whether the court or party to whom the statement is made is actually misled by the attorney’s intentional false statement” … ; i.e., the statute “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … .

… [P]laintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that, from the time he became the client’s attorney, Moore engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he advocated for the validity of a fraudulent deed, and oversaw the revision of fraudulent surveys based upon that deed. Plaintiffs alleged that Moore was in possession of documents and correspondence establishing that the deed was the fraudulent product of the client and defendant Aaron I. Mullen, an attorney who had previously represented the client, and that Moore failed to disclose those items despite receiving a valid discovery demand for them. Plaintiffs also alleged that Moore instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding based upon the allegedly fraudulent deed and that he attached the deed to the petition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Moore participated in the client’s fraud, and did so intentionally and with knowledge of the client’s fraud, to plaintiffs’ detriment of more than $100,000 in legal fees and expenses. Ostrander v Mullen, 2024 NY Slip Op 06461, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A Judiciary Law 487 action against an attorney focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not whether the deceit was successful.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the declaratory judgment action, determined there was no justiciable controversy. Plaintiff sued the County Sheriff seeking a declaration that “assigning a local court to arraign a criminal defendant with two previous felony convictions violates the constitutional rights of the accused because local courts lack the ability to order release or set bail under those circumstances.” The issue arose because of a conflict among provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law:

… City Court issued a securing order that committed [defendant] to the custody of the Sheriff on the basis of CPL 530.20 (2) (a) (double predicate provision). The double predicate provision states that a city, town, or village court (hereinafter, local court) may not order release on recognizance or bail when the criminal defendant, like plaintiff, has two previous felony convictions. Plaintiff further alleged that the double predicate provision conflicts with CPL 510.10 (4) (qualifying offense provision), which limits the court’s ability to issue a securing order imposing bail or remand to situations in which the criminal defendant stands charged with an enumerated qualifying offense (see also CPL 510.10 [3]). * * *

We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations fail to “demonstrate the existence of a bona fide justiciable controversy” inasmuch as there is no “real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests for which a declaration of rights will have some practical effect” … . … “[T]he heart of the dispute is not any action taken by the Sheriff but rather whether the local . . . court must remand a given [criminal] defendant such as [plaintiff] to the custody of the Sheriff.” * * * Plaintiff’s real dispute is with the local court that issues a securing order ostensibly in violation of the qualifying offense provision, not with the Sheriff who is bound to obey the securing order. Where, as here, “there is no genuine dispute between the parties, the courts are precluded, as a matter of law, from issuing a declaratory judgment” … . Parker v Hilton, 2024 NY Slip Op 06456, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s dispute was not with the Sheriff, who is bound to obey a securing order, but was with the local court that issued the securing order which ostensibly violated a statute and the accused’s constitutional rights. Therefore there was no justiciable controversy between plaintiff and the Sheriff.

 

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE COVID TOLLS, RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall action was timely brought because the running of the statute of limitations was suspended during the COVID tolls:

On March 20, 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8, which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules” … . Then-Governor Cuomo issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 … . “A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” … .

Here, 651 days of the 1,096-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 445 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on January 22, 2022. Thus, the action was timely commenced on June 17, 2021 … . Jackson v Goodfellas Pizzeria, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06454, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: The COVID tolls suspended the running of statutes of limitations from March 20, 2020, to November 3, 2020.

 

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