You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s failed to demonstrate when the lead-paint-exposure cause of action accrued. Therefore the motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had passed should not have been granted:

In moving to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, each defendant had “the initial burden of establishing prima facie that the time in which to sue ha[d] expired . . . and thus was required to establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff[s’] cause of action accrued” …  Here, neither defendant established the relevant accrual date of plaintiffs’ claims for injury caused by the latent effects of lead paint exposure and, in the absence of such evidence, neither defendant made a prima facie showing that the applicable limitations period had expired on those claims … . Supreme Court thus erred in granting defendants’ respective motions to that extent. We note that, at oral argument in these appeals, plaintiffs conceded that their claims for patent injuries arising from such exposure were properly dismissed as time-barred. Chaplin v Tompkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 04562, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent candidates’ answer should not have been stricken based upon alleged defects in the verification and denials and petitioner did not have standing to contest the designating petition because she did not reside in the town where the single challenged candidate was running for office:

CPLR 3026 provides that “[p]leadings shall be liberally construed” and that “[d]efects shall be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced.” Here, we conclude that petitioner did not establish substantial prejudice from any alleged defect in the verification, and thus candidate respondents’ answer should not have been stricken on that ground … . Moreover, “the CPLR does not provide for the striking of improper denials” … .

Furthermore, we note that candidate respondents properly raised standing as an affirmative defense in their April 24 answer, and we agree with candidate respondents that petitioner lacked standing to commence this proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16. A condition precedent to commencing a proceeding as an objector pursuant to section 16-102 is compliance with the requirements of section 6-154, including that the objector be a “voter registered to vote for such public office” (§ 6-154 [2]).

Here, petitioner served her specifications of objections upon Vickman and upon the chairwoman and the secretary of the Party only, and not on any of the other candidate respondents listed on the authorization. Petitioner, however, lacked standing to challenge the designating petition of Vickman or to challenge the authorization as it pertained to Vickman, who was running for public office in the Town of Farmersville, because petitioner was not a resident of that town … . Matter of Augostini v Bernstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 04312, Fourth Dept 5-30-19

 

ALTHOUGH THE CANDIDATE’S RESIDENCE WAS BEING RENOVATED AND SHE TEMPORARILY LIVED ELSEWHERE SHE INTENDED TO RETURN TO THE RESIDENCE WHICH WAS INDICATED ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION, THE DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent candidate’s designating petition should not have been invalidated on the ground that the she did not live at the address provided on the petition:

The record reflects that respondent was actively engaged in renovating the property at the address provided on the designating petitions, that respondent signed a temporary lease for a property also located within the relevant voting district, and that respondent intended on permanently residing at the property listed on the designating petitions once renovations were complete. Indeed, Supreme Court expressly noted that it did not “question . . . the integrity of [respondent’s] testimony in saying that [it was] her intention to live [at the address].” Notwithstanding the fact that the address listed on the designation petitions was not respondent’s current residence and thus did not comply with Election Law § 6-132, “[w]here, as here, there is no proof of any intention on the part of the candidate or of those who have solicited signatures on his [or her] behalf to mislead or confuse, and no evidence that the inaccuracy did or would lead or tend to lead to misidentification or confusion on the part of those invited to sign the petition or seeking to verify his [or her] qualification,” the petition should not be invalidated … . Matter of McNiel v Martin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04305, Fourth Dept 5-30-19

 

, ,

THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSE AFTER THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN SEVERED FROM THE ACTION AT THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST, AND AFTER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT HAD REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT, THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY INSTRUCTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant hospital was properly precluded from presenting a CPLR article 16 defense (pursuant to the defense, a party deemed 50% liable or less pays only that portion of the damages) in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff’s decedent was first treated at defendant hospital and then at defendant rehabilitation facilities (the Elderwoods). When plaintiff’s decedent was treated at the hospital she was given a high dosage of medication, Simvastatin, and that high dosage was continued at the Elderwoods. The dosage was four times higher than plaintiff’s decedent’s usual dosage. The high dosage caused plaintiff’s decedent’s extreme suffering and death. Earlier in the litigation, the Elderwoods moved for severance, the defendant opposed and the motion was denied. As the trial approached defendant moved to sever the Elderwoods, and represented to the court that the Elderwoods involvment would not be “a topic in the main action.” Then, at the trial, after plaintiff rested, defendant gave notice that it would present evidence of the Elderwoods’ negligence and asked to have them included on the verdict sheet pursuant to CPLR article 16. Noting that the plaintiff was not able to address the article 16 defense during the jury selection and trial, the Fourth Department held that the defendant was properly precluded from presenting the defense. The court also held that defendant’s request for an error in judgment jury instruction was properly denied:

We agree with defendant that the fact that the third-party action was severed does not extinguish a defendant’s article 16 defense. But, in this case, defendant represented before the trial started that the topic of care at the Elderwoods would not be discussed. If defendant had not made this representation, then plaintiff could have preempted or otherwise addressed this anticipated defense through opening statements and plaintiff’s own lay and expert witnesses in plaintiff’s case in chief, and thus could have suggested that the Elderwoods were not negligent before resting. As plaintiff’s counsel asserts, he could have examined his witnesses at trial differently had he known that the topic of the Elderwoods’ care, and thus the CPLR article 16 defense, was still on the table. …

It is well settled that “a doctor may be liable only if the doctor’s treatment decisions do not reflect his or her own best judgment, or fall short of the generally accepted standard of care” . An “error in judgment” charge “is appropriate only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … .

This case does not fall within that narrow category … . There was simply no evidence that there was any judgment made by hospital personnel to administer 80 mg/daily of Simvastatin to decedent. Mancuso v Health, 2019 NY Slip Op 03520, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

THE SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE OBJECTIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined it was not necessary to present objective medical evidence to establish the severe emotional distress element of intentional infliction of emotional distress:

On appeal from an order and judgment that awarded plaintiff money damages following a nonjury trial, we reject defendants’ contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. Although severe emotional distress is an element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress … , Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff was not required to present objective medical evidence in order to establish that element of her cause of action … . Fellows v Rosati, 2019 NY Slip Op 03508, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS ON A GROUND OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s SORA risk assessment, determined that the judge’s assessing points on a ground of which defendant was not given prior notice was a violation of due process. The issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice (there was no objection at the SORA hearing):

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine his or her risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the risk level assessment” . As a result, “[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned” … , and “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . Here, neither the Board nor the People requested the assessment of points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct on the ground that defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact with the victim over a period of at least two weeks … . At the conclusion of the SORA hearing, however, the court proceeded to assign additional points under that category on the ground that the grand jury testimony of the victim’s mother established that there was a third uncharged incident of sexual contact. Defendant was never provided any notice that points would be assessed as a result of a third uncharged incident and thus was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the court’s risk level assessment. People v Chrisley, 2019 NY Slip Op 03505, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT INDICATED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE CRIME TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY BUT THE JUDGE MADE NO FURTHER INQUIRY, THE PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered:

We agree with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered … . Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review because “his motion to withdraw his plea was made on grounds different from those advanced on appeal” … , and this case does not fall within the “narrow exception” to the preservation rule … , we exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … .

“A trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … . After Supreme Court accepted defendant’s guilty plea, defendant stated that he was confused by the plea proceeding, and the court asked him if he had any questions about the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant then made a series of remarks from which it became apparent that he did not understand the nature of the crime to which he had entered his guilty plea. Although defendant was “obviously confused,” the court made no further inquiry whether he understood the plea or its consequences … . People v Hector, 2019 NY Slip Op 03504, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

, ,

THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO KILL, IN ADDITION, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined there was legally insufficient evidence that the defendant shared the co-defendant’s intent to kill, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The co-defendant walked up to the defendant on the street and shot him. The defendant was present at the scene and picked the co-defendant up and drove away after the shooting. The defendant was convicted under an accomplice or accessorial liability theory:

A “defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … . Indeed, evidence that a defendant was at the crime scene and even assisted the perpetrator in removing evidence of that crime is insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction where the People fail to offer evidence from which the jury could rationally exclude the possibility that the defendant was without knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent … . “An aider and abettor must share the intent or purpose of the principal actor, and there can be no partnership in an act where there is no community of purpose”… . We have no difficulty concluding that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have found that defendant intentionally aided the codefendant after the murder, but we cannot conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence to support the inference that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . The People offered no motive for the crime … , and the evidence indicating that defendant was staring at the victim 40 minutes before the shooting and that defendant may have dropped off the codefendant at the bar prior to the shooting was plainly insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of and shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence is legally sufficient, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury … , we further conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … . A review of the weight of the evidence requires us to first determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable … . If so, we must ” weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ ” … . We conclude that an acquittal would not have been unreasonable in this case and, based on the weight of the evidence, we further conclude that the jury was not justified in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Mcdonald, 2019 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

, ,

LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. The landlord was aware the tenant had a dog, and could have required the removal of the dog, but was not aware whether the dog had vicious propensities. The court noted that theories of common-law negligence are not applicable:

It is well established that ” [t]o recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises[,] (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that defendant was aware that a dog was kept on the premises by his tenants and that he could have required them to remove or confine the dog. Nevertheless, defendant met his initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that he lacked actual or constructive knowledge that his tenants’ dog had any vicious propensities … .

Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint includes a negligence cause of action, we conclude that the court erred in failing to dismiss that cause of action inasmuch as “[c]ases involving injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed under strict liability based on the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities, not on theories of common-law negligence” … . Toher v Duchnycz, 2019 NY Slip Op 03487, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, who fell through a hole in a house under construction, was not engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) when he fell. Plaintiff was measuring windows for future installation of window treatments, which is not construction work. There were questions of fact on the negligence and wrongful death causes of action however:

… [T]he work of measuring windows for the future installation of window treatments is not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1). The work did not involve a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” … , was not “performed in the context of the larger construction project” … , and was not “necessary and incidental to the construction of the home” … . …

The work being performed by decedent was not protected work under Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as decedent ” was not involved with [any] construction’ “… , and the window treatment work was separate and “distinct from the construction work” … . Acox v Jeff Petroski & Sons, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03480, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

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