You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

A NEGATIVE INFERENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BASED UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY, SHE HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION, FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE MODIFICATION WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN, JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FACTUAL FINDINGS, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not demonstrate a change in circumstances that warranted visitation in his home, supervised by his new wife. The modified visitation was not demonstrated to be in the best interests of the children. The existing visitation arrangement, supervised by grandmother, was long-standing and was working well. In addition, the Fourth Department held that the fact that mother did not testify should not have been the basis of a negative inference. Mother had no knowledge of the circumstances underlying father’s petition:

Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference against [mother] based on her failure to testify at the hearing. The mother had no relevant testimony to offer inasmuch as she had no personal knowledge of the allegations in the modification petition … . Thus, we conclude that a negative inference against the mother was unwarranted because she did not “withhold[] evidence in [her] possession or control that would be likely to support [her] version of the case” … . …

Although the court correctly identified in its decision the applicable standard for modification of an existing custody and visitation order and referenced several circumstances that generally may support a court’s finding of a sufficient change in circumstances, the court failed to make express findings relative to the change in circumstances alleged by the father in his petition. Notwithstanding that failure, “we have the authority to review the record to ascertain whether the requisite change in circumstances existed’ ” … . …

Although the father’s marriage, new home, and diagnosis with sleep apnea are changes that have occurred since the time of the stipulation, those changes to the father’s personal circumstances do not ” reflect[] a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]’ ” … . …

… [T]there is no sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court’s determination that the children’s best interests warranted replacing the visitation supervisor, their grandmother, with the father’s new wife and permitting the father to select any location for his visits with the children … . Matter of William F.G. v Lisa M.B., 2019 NY Slip Op 00774, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault third degree. The dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). Based on the number and sizes of the scars to her face, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the victim sustained only a physical injury as opposed to a serious physical injury … . People v Sipp, 2019 NY Slip Op 00771, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, WAS NOT AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant demonstrated it was not an owner of the property where plaintiff was injured and therefore was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Defendant had leased the property from the state and then subleased the property to a non-party (EDGE). EDGE hired Jersen, the construction company for which the injured plaintiff worked:

It is well established that, for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ “… . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ “… . Thus, “[t]he key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … . …

In his affidavit, Jersen’s project manager averred that defendant was neither a party to nor involved with the negotiation of the construction contract between EDGE and Jersen; the project manager never saw any employees or representatives of defendant on site during the project; Jersen employees were not permitted to take orders from anyone other than an authorized Jersen representative; and defendant had no authority or control over Jersen employees working on the project. Those averments are consistent with the construction contract, which defined EDGE as the “[o]wner” and Jersen as the “[c]ontractor,” and provided that Jersen, as the “[c]ontractor,” was solely responsible for instituting and supervising all safety precautions and protections. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that the sublease between defendant and EDGE required defendant’s approval of the plans and specifications for the project work does not raise a material issue of fact where, as here, defendant did not contract to have the project work performed and the sublease “did not vest [defendant] with authority to determine which contractors to hire, . . . control the [project] work or . . . insist that proper safety practices [be] followed’ ” … . Ritter v Fort Schuyler Mgt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET A PARTY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISED CONTACT MOTHER IS TO BE ALLOWED, AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED FURTHER PETITIONS BY MOTHER ON PERMISSION FROM THE COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have delegated its authority to order the amount of supervised contact with the children mother is to be allowed and should not have conditioned further petitions by mother on permission from the court:

… [T]he court erred in granting her only so much supervised contact as was “deemed appropriate” by petitioners. The court is “required to determine the issue of visitation in accord with the best interests of the children and fashion a schedule that permits a noncustodial parent to have frequent and regular access” … . “In so doing, the court may not delegate its authority to make such decisions to a party” … , which the court did here by delegating to petitioners its authority to set a supervised visitation schedule. We therefore … remit the matter to Family Court to determine the supervised visitation schedule.

… [T]he court erred in ordering that any petition filed by the mother to modify or enforce the custody orders must have a judge’s permission to be scheduled. “Public policy mandates free access to the courts” … , and it is error to restrict such access without a finding that the restricted party “engaged in meritless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, or . . . otherwise abused the judicial process” … . Here, it is undisputed that the mother had not commenced any frivolous proceedings. In the absence of such a finding, it was error for the court to restrict the mother’s access to the court … . Matter of Lakeya P. v Ajja M., 2019 NY Slip Op 00761, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A FLOOR OPENING IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, DEFENDANT HAD PLACED CARDBOARD OVER THE OPENING, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this personal injury case should have been granted. Defendant Keleher had placed cardboard over the floor opening to the basement in this house under construction. Plaintiff, whose presence was foreseeable, and who (allegedly) was aware of the opening in the floor, fell through and landed on his back on the basement floor:

Timothy Keleher admitted at trial that he covered the hole, which measured several feet in width and length, with a sheet of cardboard in an effort to preserve the heat in the basement, where he was working. It was undisputed at trial that covering such a hole with cardboard created an unsafe condition. The evidence at trial further established that plaintiff’s presence at the property was foreseeable inasmuch as both Timothy Keleher and plaintiff testified that plaintiff stated that he would return to the property later that day. The fact that plaintiff may have returned later than was expected does not, in our view, render it unforeseeable that he would come back to the residence. Moreover, contrary to the Kelehers’ contention, the fact that plaintiff was allegedly “aware of the condition did not relieve [them] of [their] duty to maintain the [premises] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, such awareness ” bears only on the injured person’s comparative fault’ ” … .

Inasmuch as plaintiff’s presence was foreseeable, the risk of serious injury was great and the burden of avoiding the risk minimal, we conclude that a finding that the Kelehers were not negligent could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Pasceri v Keleher, 2019 NY Slip Op 00758, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

PLAINTIFF TRAMPLED BY TWO HORSES, STRICT LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s strict liability cause of action in this injury-caused-by-a-horse action should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he was trampled by defendant’s two horses, who broke free while plaintiff was assisting defendant in hitching the horses to a cart. …

“Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” … . In support of his motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript, wherein plaintiff testified that, prior to plaintiff’s injury, defendant stated that “once the horses are kept inside . . . they go crazy in the winter.” Thus, defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether his horses ” had vicious propensities and, if so, whether [he] knew or should have known of those propensities’ ” … . Bavifard v Capretto, 2019 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in finding the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action was sufficiently pled, noted that the cause of action must be pled with particularity pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b). Cohen & Lombardo, P.C. v Connors, 2019 NY Slip Op 00755 [169 AD3d 1399], Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ROOF OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED FROM THE FALL FROM THE BUCKET OF THE BACKHOE OR FROM BEING STRUCK BY THE BACKHOE (WHICH WAS BEING USED TO LIFT PLAINTIFF TO THE ROOF), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell from the bucket of a backhoe which was being used to lift him to the roof, where he was to remove snow and ice:

Labor Law § 240 (1) “applies where an employee is engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure’ ” … . We conclude that, contrary to defendant’s contention, the removal of snow and ice from the roof of a commercial building, under these circumstances, constitutes a form of “cleaning,” thereby bringing it within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … .

We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff was not injured by an elevation-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff established the necessary elements for liability under section 240 (1) by submitting evidence that he suffered “harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person”… , and defendant did not raise a question of material fact… .

… [P]aintiff is entitled to summary judgment irrespective of whether his injuries were caused by the fall itself or by being struck by the backhoe in the moments immediately following the fall. “To establish a prima facie case plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that he demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendants’ conduct was foreseeable” … . “Thus, a plaintiff merely has to demonstrate that he or she was injured when an elevation-related safety device failed to perform its function to support and secure him from injury”… . Here, the safety equipment provided to plaintiff did not prevent him from falling; thus, the core objective of Labor Law § 240 (1) was not met … . Plaintiff’s injury was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the failure of the safety equipment … . Burns v Marcellus Lanes, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00801, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

WHETHER TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL IS A DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE’S ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO DECIDE VIOLATED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, although finding the error harmless, determined that the trial judge should not have left the decision whether or not to move for a mistrial up to the defendant, as opposed to defense counsel. The basis for a potential mistrial was the medical examiner’s testimony that the drowning death of the victim was a “homicide:”

Defendant … contends in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the court allowed him to decide, against the professional judgment of his counsel, not to request a mistrial as the remedy for the Medical Examiner’s improper testimony. We agree. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . Defense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of trial strategy, including the decision whether to request a mistrial … . Here, defense counsel explained to the court that he recommended that defendant move for a mistrial, but that defendant instructed him not to do so. The court then addressed defendant directly and confirmed that defendant wished to proceed with trial. Thus, the court ” denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him’ ” … . People v Szatanek, 2019 NY Slip Op 00794, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, ,

THE AFORD PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO COMMIT GRAND LARCENY, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s Alford plea finding that the record lacked the requisite strong evidence of actual guilt. The defendant and two codefendants were seen by a security guard heading toward the exit of a store with unpaid merchandise in a cart. They abandoned the merchandise near the exit, got in a car, and led the police on a high speed chase resulting in two accidents and injury to a police officer. The Alford plea issue was not preserved but the Fourth Department reviewed it in the interest of justice. The Fourth Department found the evidence of intent to commit grand larceny lacking:

We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea because the record lacks the requisite strong evidence of his actual guilt … . Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction … , and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]…), we exercise our power to review defendant’s unpreserved contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]…).

The record, which includes sworn grand jury testimony, sufficiently establishes that defendant “exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner’s continued rights” … , and that the value of such property exceeded one thousand dollars… . We conclude, however, that the record lacks strong evidence that defendant acted with the intent to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate the property to himself or to a third person … . Thus, inasmuch as the record lacks strong evidence that defendant acted with the intent to commit grand larceny in the fourth degree, the record also lacks strong evidence that defendant caused injury to a person in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of that crime or during the immediate flight therefrom … . People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08802, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

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