You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that the declaratory judgment action was not subject to the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 actions. The plaintiff and defendant are private parties who own land on opposite sides of Cady Road. A portion of the Cady Road was declared discontinued and defendant allegedly erected a barrier. Plaintiff’s action sought Article 78 relief against a town official as well as a declaratory judgment. Because no Article 78 relief was possible with respect to the private defendant who allegedly erected the barrier, the shorter statute of limitations did not apply to the declaratory judgment action concerning the rights of the private parties:

Relief under CPLR article 78 is available only against a limited subset of official and institutional parties. It follows that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to article 78 proceedings cannot be imported to bar a declaratory judgment action against a private individual not subject to article 78. * * *

… [D]efendant is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a), i.e., he is not a “court, tribunal, board, corporation, [or] officer,” and it is well established that article 78 relief is available only against a “body or officer” as defined by section 7802 (a) … . …

… [T]he true gravamen of its declaratory claims “requires a judicial determination as to the rights of the parties to use Cady Road [which] would [thereby] settle the rights of private [parties],” i.e., plaintiff and defendant. And it is well established that such a contest between the “rights of private [parties]” cannot be adjudicated in an article 78 proceeding … . …

… [B]ecause an article 78 proceeding was not a “proper vehicle” for plaintiff’s private claims for declaratory relief against defendant, the four-month “limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 [1] is not applicable to [such claims] and the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1) applies instead” … . Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01966, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) defendants’ oral application requesting a jury trial, made one day late, should have been granted, and (2) the appeal from a final judgment allows an appeal of the denial of the late application for a jury trial, even though no formal motion on notice was made. The dissent argued the denial was not appealable because there was no formal motion on notice:

An appeal from a final judgment “brings up for review . . . any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The parties do not dispute that the order denying defendants’ application for leave to file a late demand for a jury trial necessarily affected the final judgment. …

… [T]he State Constitution provides for a right to a jury trial in civil cases (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). Although that right may be waived through the failure to demand it in a timely fashion (see CPLR 4102 [a]), the court “may relieve a party from the effect” of such waiver “if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result” (CPLR 4102 [e]). While “[t]he decision . . . to relieve a party from failing to timely comply with CPLR 4102 (a) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … , we conclude that the court’s denial of defendants’ application was an abuse of discretion. Braun v Cesareo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01962, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, ,

EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ‘INDICATED’ CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REPORT AMENDED TO ‘UNFOUNDED’ AND SEALED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of child maltreatment was insufficient and the “indicated” report maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment should be amended to unfounded and sealed:

At the fair hearing, DSS had the burden of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence that petitioner maltreated the child by the use of excessive corporal punishment (see Social Services Law § 424-a [2] [d]), and that such corporal punishment impaired or was in imminent danger of impairing the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition (see Social Services Law § 412 [2] [a]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Impairment of mental or emotional condition is defined as “a state of substantially diminished psychological or intellectual functioning” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [h]). Physical impairment is defined as ” a state of substantially diminished physical growth, freedom from disease, and physical functioning’ ” … . …

Other than a general reference in DSS records that the child was “upset” by the incident, DSS did not present evidence that the incident physically, mentally, or emotionally impacted the 10-year-old child. The marks observed on the child’s back, i.e., the sole marks attributed to petitioner by a preponderance of the evidence, apparently resolved the day after petitioner struck him, and before the DSS case worker examined the child. Under the circumstances here, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the child suffered the requisite impairment of his physical, mental, or emotional well-being to support a finding of maltreatment. Thus, the determination that petitioner placed the child in imminent risk of physical or emotional impairment is not supported by substantial evidence, and we therefore annul the determination and grant the petition … . Matter of Jonathan L. v Poole, 2019 NY Slip Op 01908, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

EVIDENCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WARRANTED A NEGLECT FINDING, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the evidence of excessive corporal punishment warranted a finding of neglect:

A party seeking to establish neglect must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, ” first that [the] child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship’ ” … . Although a parent may use reasonable force to discipline his or her child to promote the child’s welfare … , the “infliction of excessive corporal punishment” constitutes neglect (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Indeed, ” a single incident of excessive corporal punishment is sufficient to support a finding of neglect’ ” … .

Here, petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment (see generally Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). At the hearing, petitioner presented, among other things, witness testimony and medical records indicating that the child sustained a bruised left temple, a bruised eye, and a bloody and swollen nose after the father struck him … . Matter of Justin M.F. (Randall L.F.), 2019 NY Slip Op 01907, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S INSTRUCTING ANOTHER TO KILL HIS WIFE AND HER MOTHER DID NOT COME NEAR ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISHING MURDER TO SUPPORT THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the attempted murder convictions, determined the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendant came near enough to accomplishing murder to support the convictions. The defendant, who was in jail, gave detailed instructions to kill his wife and her mother to another inmate, who immediately informed jail authorities:

“Acts of preparation to commit an offense do not constitute an attempt . . . There must be a step in the direct movement towards the commission of the crime after preparations have been made . . . Likewise, acts of conspiring to commit a crime, or of soliciting another to commit a crime do not per se constitute an attempt to commit the contemplated crime” … . Consequently, the People must establish that defendant “engaged in conduct that came dangerously near commission of the completed crime” … . …

The evidence establishes only that defendant planned the crimes, discussed them with the inmate in the next cell and with that inmate’s girlfriend, and exchanged notes about them. Thus, inasmuch as ” several contingencies stood between the agreement in the [jail] and the contemplated [crimes],’ defendant[] did not come very near’ to accomplishment of the intended crime[s]” … . Where, as here, the evidence fails to establish that defendant took any action that brought the crime close to completion, no matter how slight … , the evidence is not legally sufficient to support a conviction of attempt to commit that crime … . People v Lendof-Gonzalez, 2019 NY Slip Op 01904, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY INCREASED THE RISK OF REOFFENSE, APPELLATE DIVISION EXERCISED ITS OWN DISCRETION AND REDUCED DEFENDANT’S RISK LEVEL FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant should have been adjudicated a level one, not a level two risk:

Although defendant was diagnosed with PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] and may have sustained a TBI traumatic brain injury], the record is devoid of evidence that any such mental impairment “is causally related to a[ ] risk of reoffense” … . …

Nor is the continuing nature of the crime sufficient to support the upward departure because, even if additional points were assessed for risk factor 4, i.e., continuing course of sexual misconduct, defendant’s total risk factor score would not result in defendant’s classification as a presumptive level two risk … . Further, there is no basis for an upward departure where, as here, the alleged aggravating factor is adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines … . Finally, although we conclude that defendant’s actions in taking the victim across state lines constitute an aggravating factor that is, “as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” … , we further conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure based on that factor under the circumstances of this case. We therefore substitute our own discretion … . People v Logsdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 00998, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY OR VISITATION ORDERS BY FAMILY OR SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the order of protection prohibiting contact between father and daughter should be subject to orders of Family or Supreme Court:

Here, the order of protection issued in this criminal proceeding bars all contact between defendant and his child, and cannot be modified by a subsequent visitation order of Family Court or Supreme Court unless it is first modified or vacated by the criminal court … . We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the order of protection should be subject to any subsequent orders of custody and visitation, and we therefore modify the judgment by amending the order of protection in favor of defendant’s biological daughter so that contact will be allowed if ordered by Family or Supreme Court in a custody, visitation or child abuse or neglect proceeding … . People v Smart, 2019 NY Slip Op 01043, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO INCOME ABOVE THE STATUTORY CAP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the court did not correctly apply the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

… [T]he court erred in applying the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to the combined parental income in excess of the statutory cap … . It is well settled that “blind application of the statutory formula to [combined parental income] over [the statutory cap], without any express findings or record evidence of the [child’s] actual needs, constitutes an abdication of judicial responsibility and renders meaningless the statutory provision setting a cap on strict application of the formula”… . Here, in awarding child support on income above the statutory cap, the court considered only the father’s financial situation. “[T]he court made no factual findings that the child[ ] [had] financial needs that would not be met unless child support were ordered to be paid out of parental income in excess of [the statutory cap],” and we conclude that, “even if the court had made such a finding, there is no evidence in the record to support it” … . Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we fix the father’s basic child support obligation on the basis of the combined parental CSSA income up to the cap amount … . Benedict v Benedict, 2019 NY Slip Op 01042, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SOME ISSUES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on some issues in this slip and fall case. The decision addresses too many issues to fairly summarize here. The court noted that Supreme Court should not have granted relief (dismissal of cross-claims) not requested in the motion papers. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a delivery area behind defendant Cafe in a plaza owned by defendant Pixley. There was some evidence the Cafe exercised control over at least part of the delivery area (snow removal):

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of the Café’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that the Café had constructive notice of the icy condition; the court also erred in denying that part of Pixley’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that Pixley had actual notice of the icy condition. Johnson v Pixley Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01040, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSES, THIS IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PLEA TO THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, reversing County Court, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective in that there was no indication of the time and date of the alleged offenses (rape). Although defendant had waived his right to appeal, the Fourth Department vacated his guilty plea:

… [T]he written waiver does not contain any data whatsoever regarding the “date and approximate time and place of each offense to be charged in the superior court information,” as explicitly required by CPL 195.20. Notwithstanding that defect, County Court determined that the written waiver “fully complie[d] with the provisions of Sections 195.10 and 195.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law” and approved it accordingly (see CPL 195.30 [requiring judicial approval of indictment waiver upon determination that it complies with CPL 195.10 and 195.20]).

The ensuing SCI [superior court information] charged defendant with two counts of second-degree rape under Penal Law § 130.30 (1). Count one alleged that defendant, “between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” Count two alleged that defendant, “on a second occasion between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” * * *

Because “an infringement of defendant’s right to be prosecuted only by indictment implicates the jurisdiction of the court” … , the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stressed that the “[f]ailure to adhere to the statutory procedure for waiving indictment” is a “jurisdictional[ defect] affecting the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law’ ” … . People v Colon-colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 01039, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

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