You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO A NAME NOT REQUESTED IN FATHER’S PETITION, A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NAME CHANGE IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court should not have authorized a change in the child’s name to a different name than that requested in father’s petition. The Fourth Department further found that a hearing to determine whether the name change is in the best interests of the child must be held:

The father filed the instant petition seeking to change the last name of the child to his surname and to alter the child’s first name because the father’s older daughter has the same name and lives with him and the child. The mother opposed the petition via sworn affidavit and provided a list of alternative names for the child to which she would not object. In its order, Supreme Court authorized the child to assume one of the names proposed by the mother, concluding that “the inclusion of both biological parents’ names in a child’s last name is reasonable and in the best interests of the child, particularly where, as here, both parents are active participants in the child’s life.” Thus, the court, in essence, denied the father’s petition in its entirety, and the father appeals.

… Civil Rights Law § 63 provides that, upon presentation of a petition for a name change, if the court “is satisfied . . . that the petition is true, and that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, . . . the court shall make an order authorizing the petitioner to assume the name proposed.” In the absence of a cross petition filed by the mother proposing a name change for the child, the only name that was properly before the court for consideration was the name change sought by the father in his petition.

Furthermore, “if the petition be to change the name of an infant, . . . the interests of the infant [must] be substantially promoted by the change”… . “With respect to the interests of the infant, the issue is not whether it is in the infant’s best interests to have the surname of the mother or father, but whether the interests of the infant will be promoted substantially by changing his [or her] surname” … . “As in any case involving the best interests standard, whether a child’s best interests will be substantially promoted by a proposed name change requires a court to consider the totality of the circumstances”  … . Matter of Segool v Fazio, 2018 NY Slip Op 08799, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

LEGAL SENTENCE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DRASTICALLY REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BASED UPON APPELLATE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO CONTEND THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department drastically reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to a motion for a writ of coram nobis based on appellate counsel’s failure to to contend that the sentencing court abused its discretion in finding defendant to be a persistent felony contender. The Fourth Department found that the sentencing court  was not erroneous as a matter of law because it did not act arbitrarily or irrationally. However, the Fourth Department noted that it has the authority to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 470.20 (6) and did so. Defendant’s 15 to life sentence was reduced to an aggregate sentence of 5 1/2 to 11:

Although defendant has a lengthy criminal history, almost all of his offenses stem from him stealing from stores to get money to support his long-standing drug habit. It does not appear from the presentence report that defendant has ever inflicted violence on anyone, and he certainly did not physically harm anyone in this case.

We note that the People never requested that defendant be adjudicated a persistent felony offender; instead, the court sua sponte ordered the persistent felony offender hearing. As noted, the People, in a pretrial plea bargain, offered defendant a sentence of concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 2 to 4 years. Moreover, the judge who initially handled this case transferred it to Drug Treatment Court, which rejected defendant due to his extended period of sobriety—he had been in jail for more than a year at the time awaiting trial. Defendant thus went from having his case transferred to Drug Treatment Court, where successful completion may have resulted in reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanors, to being sentenced to 20 years to life, on the same charges [reduced to 15 to life on a prior appeal]. Such a disparity between the plea offer and the ultimate sentence militates in favor of a sentence reduction, especially for a nonviolent offender such as defendant. People v Ellison, 2018 NY Slip Op 08833, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION, THE PARENTS WERE FIT AND THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WEIGHT, INSTEAD FAMILY COURT IGNORED THE PARENTS’ TESTIMONY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support granting visitation rights to grandmother. The parents of the children were deemed fit and the relationship between the parents and the children was deemed to be loving and supportive. Therefore the wishes of the parents were to be given weight, Family Court ignored the testimony of the parents. Grandmother is an attorney who practices in Family Court. After a minor argument at her home between father and his brother, grandmother instituted litigation, which the Fourth Department characterized as using her position in the legal system to undermine the parental relationship:

It is well established that a fit parent has a “fundamental constitutional right” to make parenting decisions … . For that reason, the Court of Appeals has emphasized that “the courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent’s wishes. The presumption that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests is a strong one” … . …

Because the parents are fit, their decision to prevent the children from visiting the grandmother is entitled to “special weight” … . …

[The] evidence makes it difficult to draw any conclusion other than that the grandmother “is responsible for escalating a minor incident into a full-blown family crisis, totally ignoring the damaging impact [her] behavior would have on the [family relationships] and making no effort to mitigate that impact” … . Matter of Jones v Laubacker, 2018 NY Slip Op 08822, First Dept 12-20-18

 

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD A HISTORY OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment proceeding, determined there was insufficient evidence that defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse:

We agree with defendant that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that he had a history of alcohol and drug abuse … .

The SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary for risk factor 11 state in relevant part that “[a]lcohol and drug abuse are highly associated with sex offending . . . The guidelines reflect this fact by adding 15 points if an offender has a substance abuse history . . . It is not meant to include occasional social drinking. In instances where the offender abused drugs and/or alcohol in the distant past, but his more recent history is one of prolonged abstinence, the . . . court may choose to score zero points in this category” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15 [2006]). At the SORA hearing, the People presented evidence that defendant drank one can of beer each month. We agree with defendant that such evidence was insufficient to warrant the assessment of points under risk factor 11 … . The People also presented evidence that defendant smoked marihuana in his teenage years and early twenties, but thereafter participated in a drug treatment program and, at the time of the presentence interview, had not smoked marihuana for four years. We agree with defendant that the People’s evidence established that his recent history of drug use was one of prolonged abstinence and was also insufficient to warrant the assessment of points under risk factor 11 … . People v Madonna, 2018 NY Slip Op 08789, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTOR WAS GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS AND REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WAS NOT WARRANTED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the prosecutor had exceeded the bounds of the propriety but the prosecutorial misconduct, which was not preserved for appeal by objection, did not warrant reversal. Two dissenting justices argued the misconduct warranted reversal:

We agree with defendant, however, that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of propriety by cross-examining a defense witness regarding an uncharged crime that defendant allegedly committed and by placing his own credibility in issue while doing so. “A prosecutor may not refer to matters not in evidence or call upon the jury to draw conclusions that cannot fairly be inferred from the evidence” … and, in this case, the prosecutor strayed outside ” the four corners of the evidence’ ” when he implied that defendant committed different crimes … . Nevertheless, reversal is unwarranted where a prosecutor’s error has not substantially prejudiced a defendant’s trial … and, although the dissent is correct that we have previously admonished this prosecutor, the instant trial occurred before that admonition. Therefore, although we strongly condemn the prosecutor’s conduct during cross-examination, we conclude that it does not warrant reversal here … .

From the Dissent: We agree with defendant that the prosecutor caused him substantial prejudice during the cross-examination of a defense witness. ” It is fundamental that evidence concerning a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged’ ” … . …

We further agree with defendant that remarks in the prosecutor’s summation were inflammatory and prejudicial. The prosecutor referred to defendant’s witnesses as “liars,” compounding the prejudicial effect of his improper cross-examination … . More egregiously, the prosecutor referred to defendant as a “monster” four times. People v Fick, 2018 NY Slip Op 08788, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

EXPERTS MAY NOT RELY ON DISPUTED FACTS IN RENDERING AN OPINION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, noted that experts cannot rely on disputed facts when rendering an opinion:

Although defendants submitted affidavits from medical experts opining that the individual defendants did not deviate from the standard of care and that any alleged deviation was not a proximate cause of the postsurgery medical complications, those experts relied solely on the symptoms as documented in the medical records of [two of the defendants]. … [T]hose symptoms are vastly different from the symptoms allegedly reported to the remaining defendants and demonstrated by plaintiff before the surgery. It is well settled that experts may not rely upon disputed facts when rendering an opinion … . Moreover, we note that defendants’ experts failed to address plaintiff’s contention that, had he been timely diagnosed, he would not have been required to undergo the surgery in the first place. … “By ignoring the [allegation that the remaining defendants’ malpractice caused plaintiff to undergo the very surgery that caused the brain bleed], defendant[s’] expert[s] failed to tender[ ] sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’ . . . as to proximate causation and, as a result, [the remaining] defendant[s] [were] not entitled to summary judgment” with respect to those parts of their respective motions and cross motions … . Kubera v Bartholomew, 2018 NY Slip Op 08784, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE CAR THAT WAS NOT SLOWING DOWN AS IT APPROACHED THE INTERSECTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have granted the Sile defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Matthew Sile had the right of way when his truck was broadsided by a car (driven by Buck) which failed to stop an the intersection. The majority held that the papers submitted by the Sile defendants raised an issue of fact whether Matthew Sile should have seen the Buck car which was not slowing down as it approached the intersection:

Although plaintiffs do not dispute that Buck was negligent in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law or that Matthew had the right-of-way as he proceeded straight through the intersection, it is well settled that ” there may be more than one proximate cause of [a collision]’ “… . Thus, in their motions, the Sile defendants had the initial burden of establishing as a matter of law either that Matthew was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the accident… . We conclude in both appeals that the Sile defendants failed to meet that burden … .

Although “a driver who has the right[-]of[-]way is entitled to anticipate that [the drivers of] other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” … , that driver nevertheless has a “duty to exercise reasonable care in proceeding through [an] intersection” … , and “cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection”… . Here, by their own submissions, the Sile defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether Matthew met his “duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . Gilkerson v Buck, 2018 NY Slip Op 08782, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

SENTENCES FOR MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined consecutive sentences for murder and criminal possession of a weapon were illegal:

… [T]he sentence is illegal insofar as the court directed that the sentence imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree shall run consecutively to the sentence imposed for murder in the second degree… . As the People correctly concede, “the sentence on the murder conviction should run concurrently with the sentence on the weapon possession conviction that requires unlawful intent … , because the latter offense was not complete until defendant shot the victim[]” … . People v Maull, 2018 NY Slip Op 08780, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHED THE RECORD AND ISSUED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALLOWING PLANTIFFS TO PAVE AN EASEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, searched the record and issued a declaratory judgment allowing plaintiffs to pave an easement and further should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have an easement which allows access to their driveway. Plaintiffs alleged the easement needed to be paved because their vehicle would hit bottom crossing it:

A party’s right of passage over an easement carries with it the ” right to maintain it in a reasonable condition for such use’ “… . The right to repair and maintain an easement includes “the right to carry out work as necessary to reasonably permit the passage of vehicles and, in so doing, to not only remove impediments but supply deficiencies in order to construct [or repair] a suitable road’ “… . The right to repair and maintain, however, is “limited to those actions necessary to effectuate the express purpose of [the] easement’ ” … , and thus the work performed must not “materially increase the burden of the servient estate[] or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate[]” … . Relatedly, the servient landowner has a “corresponding right[] to have the natural condition of the terrain preserved, as nearly as possible’ . . . and to insist that the easement enjoyed shall remain substantially as it was at the time it accrued, regardless of whether benefit or damage will result from a proposed change’ ” … . …

Defendant contends on his appeal that the court erred in searching the record and entering a declaratory judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. We agree. As an initial matter, although plaintiffs did not seek declaratory relief, the court has the authority to “grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded, imposing such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3017 [a]…). We conclude, however, that the declaration was not appropriate given the evidence presented here. Tarsel v Trombino, 2018 NY Slip Op 08779, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

PURELY CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT WILL NOT SURVIVE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in determining a negligent training and supervision cause of action was properly dismissed, noted that purely conclusory allegations in a complaint will not survive a pre-answer motion to dismiss:

We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in dismissing the third cause of action, alleging negligent training and supervision. We are cognizant of our duty on a motion to dismiss to “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” .. , and that the issue ” [w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss’ ” … . Nevertheless, although “it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support . . . Indeed, a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations”… . Here, the only factual allegations in the third cause of action concern the actions of other defendants not involved in this appeal; therefore, plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations with respect to defendants fail to state a valid cause of action for negligent training and supervision against them … . Bratge v Simons, 2018 NY Slip Op 08778, 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