You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

THE POLICE WERE AWARE THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS IN THE RESIDENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND WAS ARRESTED; THERE WERE NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE HOUSE AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE WEAPONS SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapons seized when the police did a “protective sweep” of defendant’s residence should have been granted. Defendant’s wife and daughter had left the residence and told the police, who were outside the residence, only the defendant was inside. Defendant eventually left the residence and was arrested. Only then did the police enter for the “protective sweep:”

… [W]e conclude that there were no emergency or exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the residence. Once defendant’s daughter exited the dwelling, the officers knew from defendant’s wife that no one else was in the dwelling except defendant. None of the officers at the scene witnessed anything that would lead them to suspect that there was another person in the residence. The “mere possibility” that a person could be inside the premises did not justify the search … . We also note that there was no indication that defendant had shot or injured anyone prior to the officers’ arrival at his residence, and at no time had defendant threatened the police or anyone else at the residence. Under the circumstances, there was no legitimate reason for the police not to apply for a search warrant before entering the house. People v Swank, 2024 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A “protective sweep” of a residence that the police know to be vacant amounts to a warrantless search in the absence of exigent circumstances.

 

, ,

SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined SMI, the owner of a solid waste management facility, did not have standing to challenge, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a local law allowing the construction of a solid waste management facility in the Town of Seneca Falls. SMI’s claim it would suffer economic loss if the new facility is constructed was not enough to confer standing:

Those seeking to raise a SEQRA challenge must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

… Although “[a] property owner in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of [an agency] determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity” … , the “status of neighbor does not . . . automatically provide the entitlement . . . to judicial review in every instance” … . The petitioner must also establish “that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute” … .

Here, SMI failed to establish, or even allege, that it had suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. SMI submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its managing director, who averred only that SMI would suffer economic injuries if the local law was not annulled. Although SMI, as the owner of a solid waste management facility, is entitled to a presumption that it would, in fact, suffer such economic harm, it failed to establish that it has standing to raise a SEQRA challenge because economic injury does not fall within the zone of interest SEQRA seeks to protect … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2024 NY Slip Op 06435, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing, a party bringing a SEQRA challenge must demonstrate an environmental injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large. Here no environmental injury was alleged. Therefore standing was not demonstrated.

 

, ,

THE MUNICIPAL LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES JUNK YARDS TO BE LICENSED DOES NOT APPLY IN PLAINTIFF TOWN WHERE DEFENDANT OPERATES HER JUNK YARD; A LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE LICENSURE, IS THE CONTROLLING LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Municipal Law provision which requires junk yards to be licensed does not apply to defendant because the local zoning ordinance is the controlling law:

… [T]he parties dispute whether General Municipal Law § 136 applies to junkyards located within plaintiff [town]. That statute provides that it “shall not be construed to . . . supersede . . . ordinances or local laws for the control of junk yards . . . and shall not be deemed to apply to any municipality which has any ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” (General Municipal Law § 136 [12]).

We agree with defendant that General Municipal Law § 136 is inapplicable to plaintiff’s regulation of her junkyard inasmuch as plaintiff has a local “zoning ordinance[] . . . for the control of junk yards . . . in effect” … . Plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance … defines the term “Junkyard,” establishes Zoning Districts, including, as relevant here, an “Agricultural/Residential District” and an “Industrial Zoning District,” provides that a junkyard is allowed only in an Industrial Zoning District and only with a Special Use Permit, and governs the application for and issuance of Special Use Permits. Plaintiff [town] therefore effectively implemented an “ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” … . It is of no moment that plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance did not include a specific policy for issuing a license for junkyards … . Town of Montezuma v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 06433, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: By its own terms the General Municipal Law provision which requires licensure of junk yards does not apply in towns that have a zoning ordinance which regulates junk yards, even where the ordinance does not require licensure.

 

, ,

THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s dismissal of the felony aggravated driving while intoxicated count, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, determined the grand jury was properly instructed on the definition of “impaired.” The Fourth Department noted its disagreement with the Third Department on this issue:

… [T]he People correctly instructed the grand jury that the term “impaired” in the context of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) is defined as the defendant’s consumption of a combination of drugs and alcohol to the point that it “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

In reaching that conclusion, we also note our respectful disagreement with the Third Department’s decision in People v Caden N. (189 AD3d 84 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1050 [2021]), which defined the term “impaired” in the context of drug consumption in accordance with the heightened standard typically applicable in cases of “intoxication” by alcohol … . Ultimately, we conclude that the term “impaired” should be defined consistently across the Vehicle and Traffic Law—whether in the context of impairment by alcohol or in the context of impairment by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals, in Cruz, clearly defined the term “impaired” to mean—in the context of alcohol consumption—that a defendant “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (48 NY2d [419] at 427 …). In defining “impaired” that way, the Court sharply distinguished the term “impaired” from the separate term “intoxication,” as used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), noting that the latter term denoted “a greater degree of impairment which is reached when [a] driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that [they are] incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (Cruz, 48 NY2d [419] at 428). The Court concluded that the terms impaired and intoxicated are not interchangeable … . People v Dondorfer, 2024 NY Slip Op 06432, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: In the Fourth Department “impaired” in the context of felony aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 (4-a)” means impairment “to any extent [of] the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

 

, ,

A HANDGUN USED AS BLUDGEON IS A “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A BURGLARY FIRST DEGREE COUNT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE CHARGE TO BURGLARY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and reinstating the reduced count, determined the handgun with which the victim was allegedly struck was a “dangerous instrument” despite the fact it had not been fired. County Court had reduced the charge from Burglary first to Burglary second on the ground the handgun had not been shown to be a “dangerous instrument:”

The People were required to present competent evidence to the grand jury demonstrating that defendant or another participant in the crime used, or threatened the immediate use of, a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). A dangerous instrument is defined as “any instrument, article or substance . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (§ 10.00 [13]).

At the grand jury hearing, the victim testified that three men entered her apartment and the first man who walked in had a gun. She further testified that, at one point, “the guy with the gun” became “more upset” and hit her “upside the head” with the gun.

It is well established that “a ‘gun [that is] used as a bludgeon’ is a dangerous instrument” … because it ” ‘is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury’ ” … . Here, County Court ruled that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish that the item used by defendant or another participant in the crime was a dangerous instrument because it was not discharged during the incident and there was no evidence that the item was recovered or tested. That was error. We agree with the People that they were not required to submit evidence that the item described by the victim as a gun was an operable or loaded firearm in order to meet the dangerous instrument element of the crime … . We further agree with the People that they were not required to prove that the victim suffered an injury but, rather, needed only to establish that “under the circumstances in which [the instrument, article, or substance was] used . . . or threatened to be used, [it was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13] …). It is reasonable for a grand jury to infer that hitting the victim on the side of the victim’s head with a gun could cause serious physical injury. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that defendant or another participant in the crime used a dangerous instrument … . People v Delee, 2024 NY Slip Op 06491, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A handgun used as a bludgeon is a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of the Penal Law and the Burglary First Degree statute. The People need not show the handgun was operable or that the victim suffered a serious injury.

 

,

THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the New York complaint based upon the choice of forum clause (Arizona) in the contract should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the contract was illegal under New York law. But a choice of forum clause is independent from a choice of law clause:

The contract between the parties provided that Arizona law would govern “the rights and obligations” of the parties under the contract. It further provided that all disputes arising out of the contract “shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state or federal courts sitting in Maricopa County, Arizona.” That forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown by plaintiff to be ” ‘unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” … .

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the contract’s “pay-if-paid” provision, together with a provision prohibiting plaintiff from contacting clients of defendant, rendered the contract void as against public policy of New York. Plaintiff’s argument, however, “is misdirected [inasmuch as t]he issue [it] raise[s] is really one of choice of law, not choice of forum” … . ” ‘[O]bjections to a choice of law clause are not a warrant for failure to enforce a choice of forum clause’ ” … . Plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the forum selection clause contravenes New York public policy … . Nor has plaintiff shown that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust or alleged that the clause was the result of fraud or overreaching … . Plaintiff’s further argument in opposition to the motion—i.e., that it would be a hardship for plaintiff’s owner to go to Arizona to litigate this dispute—is an insufficient basis on which to deny the motion … . The fact that New York may be a more convenient forum is immaterial inasmuch as defendant’s motion is based on the parties’ contract and not on the doctrine of forum non conveniens … . Prestige Lawn Care of WNY, LLC v Facilitysource, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06483, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of a choice of forum clause versus a choice of law clause versus the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

 

, ,

ON THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL, THE TRIAL COURT’S VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE WAS REVERSED; THE NEW EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE SHOOTER, DEFENDANT WAS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE SHOOTER; AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY CONSIDER THE TRIAL COURT’S GROUNDS FOR ITS RULINGS, OR RULINGS ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and denying the motion to vacate the criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined new evidence which indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the machine gun to the shooter (Scott)  would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict. Defendant would have been convicted as an accomplice. In rejecting an argument on appeal that was not part of the ruling below, the Fourth Department explained that its appellate jurisdiction is limited to grounds relied on by the trial court which were adverse to the appellant:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence in question is not “of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10 [1] [g] …). Scott’s deposition testimony establishes that defendant possessed the loaded machine gun, provided it to Scott, transported Scott to the vicinity of the crime, and had a motive to harm the victims because his family had “beef” with theirs, thus providing sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty as an accomplice to the weapons possession of which he was convicted … . ” ‘[W]hether one is the actual perpetrator of the offense or an accomplice is, with respect to criminal liability for the offense, irrelevant’ ” … .

Defendant requests that we affirm on the ground, which he asserted in the court below, that consideration of the new evidence in light of a theory of accessorial liability requires an impermissible amendment to the indictment. We agree with the People that we have no authority to affirm on that basis … .

Under CPL 470.15 (1), “[u]pon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” * * * The Appellate Division engages in “the type of appellate overreaching prohibited by CPL 470.15 (1)” when it “renders a decision on grounds explicitly different from those of the trial court, or on grounds that were clearly resolved in [the appellant’s] favor” … .

Here, the court determined that “the accessorial liability theory, if presented at a new trial, would not constitute an impermissible amendment to the indictment in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights,” clearly resolving that issue in the People’s favor.  People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 06473, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: New evidence indicated defendant was not the shooter but had provided the weapon to the shooter with the requisite intent. Because the new evidence would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon charge, defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should have been denied.

Practice Point: An intermediate appellate court can only consider grounds for rulings relied on by the trial court or rulings adverse to the appellant.

 

,

THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable:

… [W]e conclude that the People did not meet their burden of establishing the third element of the plain view exception—i.e., that the incriminating nature of the seized items was immediately apparent. In making such a determination, we must consider whether “the facts available to the [police] officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that [the] items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” … . This is a probable cause standard—i.e., there need not be “certainty or near certainty” about the incriminating nature of the seized items … . That element is not satisfied, however, “where the object [to be seized] must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined” … . Indeed, “[s]uch a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the [police] officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated” … . Still, “[a] truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a search” … . People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05733, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the fact the checks were forged was not apparent until the police “manipulated” them. Therefore the “plain view” exception to the search-warrant requirement was not applicable and the checks should have been suppressed.

 

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE OR SHE WOULD HOLD THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a prospective juror’s indication he or she would hold defendant’s refusal to testify against the defendant required excusal “for cause:”

Here, the prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that he “[a]bsolutely” might hold it against defendant if defendant chose not to testify … .

Contrary to the court’s determination, the prospective juror did not “give unequivocal assurance that [he could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or ‘talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[ ] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [the prospective juror] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, [the] trial court[ ] should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have ‘replaced one impartial juror with another’ ” … . We conclude that the prospective juror’s act of nodding his head affirmatively after the court gave an instruction and posed a question to the entire jury panel was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration” … . People v Cheese, 2024 NY Slip Op 05712, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the prospective juror indicated bias requiring excusal for cause by indicating he or she would hold the refusal to testify against the defendant.

 

, , ,

MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF HER MENTAL HEALTH IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS ACTION; THE PRIOR MENTAL-HEALTH-BASED RULING WAS BASED ON THREE-TO-EIGHT-YEAR-OLD EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should not have been prevented from presenting evidence of her mental health in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding under the collateral estoppel doctrine. Although mother had previously been adjudicated unable to provide proper and adequate care of the children in 2018, there was no evidence of mother’s current mental health:

Neither the relied-upon 2018 order of disposition nor its supporting decision … contains a finding of fact or conclusion of law that the mother’s mental illness or intellectual disability permanently impaired the mother’s ability to provide adequate care for a child … . Instead, the prior judicial determination that the mother was “presently and for the foreseeable future” unable to provide adequate care was premised upon evaluations of the mother conducted in 2012 and 2017. Further, that determination was issued a year prior to the birth of the subject child in the present proceeding and, although the subject child was ordered into petitioner’s care almost immediately following her birth, the instant petition was nonetheless not filed for yet another two years. Thus, the 2018 judicial determination, premised on three- to eight-year-old evidence, is insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence, as a matter of law, that the mother was, at the time of this proceeding, “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for [the subject] child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c] …). Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05690, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here there was a prior ruling based on three-to-eight-year-old evidence that mother’s mental health prevented her from adequately caring for her children. The collateral estoppel doctrine should not have been applied to prevent her from presenting evidence of her current mental health.

 

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