You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) should not have been granted. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff’s fall could have been prevented by an available safety device. Plainitiff was not tied off, but there was testimony he couldn’t have accomplished the work if he were tied off with a six foot lanyard. Although a 25 foot lanyard was available, plaintiff fell 25 to 30 feet and the retractable lanyard may not have prevented the injury:

“A violation occurs where a scaffold or elevated platform is inadequate in and of itself to protect workers against the elevation-related hazards encountered while assembling or dismantling that device, and it is the only safety device supplied or any additional safety device is also inadequate” … . …

We conclude that defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. In support of their contentions that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he testified that he chose to unhook his safety lanyard and detach the bridge scaffolding sheet without the benefit of the lanyard or other safety device. The six-foot lanyard given to him was not an adequate safety device, however, because plaintiff also testified that it was too short to permit plaintiff to reach the final clip anchoring the bridge scaffolding sheet, even if he had moved the fall arrest system cable to a location closer to that clip. Furthermore, although defendants submitted evidence that other safety devices were generally available on the work site, they failed to establish as a matter of law that an adequate safety device was present that would have prevented plaintiff “from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to . . . [his] person” … . For example, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that a 20- or 25-foot lanyard, which appears to have been the next length available on the work site, would have prevented plaintiff’s fall by virtue of the fact that it was retractable. It therefore cannot be concluded on this record that plaintiff’s use of that alternative lanyard would have made any substantial difference in plaintiff’s injuries … . Martin v Niagara Falls Bridge Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 04452, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s error in refusing the instruct the jury on manslaughter second and criminally negligent homicide was harmless error. The defendant was charged with murder and the trial court instructed the jury on manslaughter first degree as a lesser included offense. The jury convicted the defendant of both murder and manslaughter first. Because the jury convicted on the top count, and the jury was instructed on the top lesser included offense, the failure to instruct on the more remote lesser included offenses was deemed harmless error. The manslaughter first conviction was reversed as a lesser concurrent count:

As set forth by the Court of Appeals, “where a court charges the next lesser included offense of the crime alleged in the indictment, but refuses to charge lesser degrees than that, . . . the defendant’s conviction of the crime alleged in the indictment forecloses a challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” (People v Boettcher, 69 NY2d 174, 180 [1987]). The premise underlying a determination of harmless error is that, when a jury convicts the defendant of the top (i.e., highest) charged offense and thereby excludes from the case the next lesser (i.e., intermediate) included offense, the verdict dispels any significant probability that the jury, had it been given the option, would have acquitted the defendant of both the highest and intermediate charged offenses and instead convicted the defendant of the even lesser (i.e., remote) included offense that was erroneously not charged … . Thus, cases applying the analysis set forth in Boettcher hold that where the trial court charges the jury with the highest offense of murder in the second degree and the intermediate offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and the jury convicts the defendant of murder in the second degree, the defendant’s challenge on appeal to the court’s denial of a request to charge the remote offenses of manslaughter in the second degree and/or criminally negligent homicide is foreclosed, i.e., any error is harmless … . People v Mcintosh, 2018 NY Slip Op 04455, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not present sufficient proof at the suppression hearing to allow the suppression court to find there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. After a traffic stop, defendant was arrested based upon information from the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department about an active warrant for defendant’s arrest in Cortland. Cocaine seized in a search incident to arrest was the basis for the instant charges against the defendant. The defendant specifically challenged the validity of the communications with the arresting officers concerning the warrant. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present the warrant or any witness with first-hand knowledge about the warrant. The cocaine should have been suppressed:

Despite defendant’s explicit challenge to the reliability of the information justifying his arrest … , the People did not produce the arrest warrant itself prior to the conclusion of the hearing … . Instead, the People relied upon the officer’s testimony concerning his communications with an unidentified person or persons at the 911 Center and his assumptions about how the 911 Center confirmed the existence of an active and valid warrant. That testimony, however, rested “on a pyramid of hearsay, the information having been passed from” the arresting officer to unidentified persons at the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department and back to the officer… . “In making an arrest, a police officer may rely upon information communicated to him by another police officer that an individual is the subject named in a warrant and should be taken into custody in the execution of the warrant . . . However, if the warrant turns out to be invalid or vacated . . . [,] or nonexistent . . . , any evidence seized as a result of the arrest will be suppressed notwithstanding the reasonableness of the arresting officer’s reliance upon the communication” … . Here, without producing the arrest warrant itself or reliable evidence that the warrant was active and valid, the People did not meet their burden of establishing that defendant’s arrest was based on probable cause … . People v Searight, 2018 NY Slip Op 04466, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, affirming defendant’s criminal mischief conviction and the restitution order, looked at the evidentiary issues raised on appeal through the lens of the relevant jury instructions. Where there is no objection to the jury instructions, the proof required of the People is that which is laid out in the jury instructions. The indictment alleged that the defendant and several others vandalized cars at a dealership by scratching the cars with keys causing total damage in the amount of $40,000. On appeal defendant argued (1) the charged offense requires damage to property owned by a “person” and the People did not demonstrate that the car dealership was a “person” within the meaning of the statute, (2) the precise amount of damage attributable to the defendant was not proven, and (3) ordering defendant to pay restitution in the full amount of the damages was error. All of defendant’s arguments were rejected:

The court told the jury that defendant must have damaged the property of “another person” — not “another human being” — and it is common knowledge that personhood can and sometimes does attach to nonhuman entities like corporations or animals …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has written that personhood is “not a question of biological or natural’ correspondence”…, and we can “presume[]” that the jurors had ” sufficient intelligence’ to make [the] elementary logical inferences presupposed by the language of [the court’s] charge” … . In short, defendant’s personhood argument effectively transforms an undefined but commonly understood term into an incorrectly defined term, and we decline to follow him down that path. …

… [T]he jury was instructed — without objection — that “[i]f it is proven . . . that the defendant acted in concert with others, he is thus criminally liable for their conduct. The extent or degree of the defendant’s participation in the crime does not matter” … . Perhaps this instruction was inconsistent with section 20.15 … but it still forecloses defendant’s claim of factual insufficiency as to value. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals previously upheld a restitution award that imposed the full value of the victim’s loss on a single perpetrator, instead of apportioning the loss among the defendant and his accomplices …— as defendant appears to seek here. People v Graves, 2018 NY Slip Op 04503, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the DWI case for resentencing, determined defendant’s sentence should not have been changed after defendant left the courtroom. The court further found that the five-year conditional discharge to monitor the ignition interlock device exceeded the maximum allowed term (three years):

“[D]efendants have a fundamental right to be present at sentencing’ in the absence of a waiver” of that right … , and here defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing. Thus, as the People correctly concede, the court erred in changing the sentence of incarceration after defendant left the courtroom inasmuch as a resentencing to correct an error in a sentence “must be done in the defendant’s presence” … . People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, rejected defendant’s arguments that (1) the People failed to prove the “service of the order” element of criminal contempt, and (2) his acquittal on some counts of the indictment rendered the evidence legally insufficient for the counts on which he was convicted.

… [D]efendant argues only that the convictions on counts two and five are legally insufficient due to the jury’s acquittals on the remaining counts. According to defendant, “when the conduct that was plainly rejected by the jury is removed from consideration, there is nothing left to support the physical menace conviction [count two] or the conviction for engaging in conduct that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury [count five].” Put differently, “the only conduct upon which defendant could be found guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted was smashing [his wife’s] car windows with a metal pipe while she was inside it. Because the jury was unwilling to find that defendant engaged in that conduct,” defendant continues, “the convictions must be reversed as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.”

… [T]he mixed verdicts provide no basis to question the legal sufficiency of the convictions… . In fact, defendant’s argument is a classic “masked repugnancy” argument … , and it suffers from the same premise error that dooms all “masked repugnancy” arguments: it assumes that a jury’s verdict on one count can be weaponized to attack the legal or factual sufficiency of its verdict on another count. But that is not the law. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that “[f]actual inconsistency [in a verdict]— which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy—does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict’ ” on legal sufficiency grounds … . * * *

… [D]efendant says that the People failed to prove the so-called “service element” of that crime, i.e., that the underlying protective order was “duly served” upon him or that he had “actual knowledge [thereof] because he . . . was present in court when [it] was issued” … . Because the service element is phrased disjunctively — i.e., it is satisfied if the defendant violates either a “duly served” protective order or a protective order of which he or she has “actual knowledge” because of his or her presence in court …) — the People need prove only one of the statutory alternatives beyond reasonable doubt … . People v Nichols, 2018 NY Slip Op 04502, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/INCONSISTENT VERDICTS  (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL (SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification under CPLR 901 for employees alleging defendant did not pay prevailing wages required by article I, § 17 of the New York Constitution and section 220 (3) of the Labor Law:

… [T]he court erred in determining that plaintiffs failed to establish the first and second CPLR 901 prerequisites, numerosity and commonality. Plaintiffs established the numerosity prerequisite by submitting evidence of approximately 350 class members at a minimum … . Plaintiffs established the commonality prerequisite because one common legal issue dominates the claims of all putative class members, i.e., whether similarly situated employees who worked on public projects were deprived of the prevailing wages to which they were entitled… . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the fact that the amount of damages will vary among the putative class members does not prevent this lawsuit from going forward as a class action … . Vandee v Suit-Kote Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04456, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 901 (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/CLASS ACTION (CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should have been granted:

It is well established that “an animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” … . “A known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant[] liable for damages resulting from such an act” … . “In contrast, normal canine behavior’ such as barking and running around’ does not amount to vicious propensities” … .

The evidence establishes that, on the day of the incident, plaintiff sent a text message to a group of people that included defendant, as she had on previous occasions, to inform them that she would be at the dog park with her dog, who often played with Kane [defendant’s dog]. Immediately prior to the incident, plaintiff threw a ball for her dog, plaintiff’s dog retrieved the ball and, as he had frequently done in the past, Kane ran alongside plaintiff’s dog back toward plaintiff. Both dogs were running fast in plaintiff’s direction and, when it appeared that Kane was not going to veer off to the side, plaintiff turned away, whereupon Kane allegedly struck her leg. Despite evidence that Kane may have clumsily run around the dog park and similarly made contact with another visitor on a prior occasion, we conclude that, unlike situations in which a dog purposefully jumps onto or charges at a person … , “[Kane’s alleged] act of running into plaintiff in the course of . . . playfully [running alongside another dog at a dog park] merely consisted of normal canine behavior that does not amount to a vicious propensity” … . Long v Hess, 2018 NY Slip Op 04475, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

ANIMAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DOG BITE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this snow plow traffic accident case should not have been granted. The snow plow driver was backing up below the crest of a hill and plaintiff was unable to brake in time when he crested the hill. The Fourth Department held that there was a question of fact whether the snow plow driver acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103:

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that Marsh did not operate the snowplow with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and defendants thus were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway”… . However, the statute does not protect snowplow drivers “from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (§ 1103 [b]). The operator of a snowplow acts with such “reckless disregard” when he or she ” acts in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that harm will follow’ ” … . The reckless disregard standard “requires a showing of more than a momentary judgment lapse” … .

Here, defendants’ submissions in support of the motion establish that Marsh had been a driver of the snowplow route for 15 years and was aware that an intersection where he could safely turn around was less than a quarter of a mile away. Despite that knowledge, Marsh drove the snowplow in reverse, in front of a hill that obscured his view of approaching traffic on a narrow, two-lane country road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour, without first sounding his horn in warning. Marsh’s deposition testimony that he did not realize that he had collided with plaintiff’s vehicle until several seconds after the collision raises a question of fact whether he was utilizing his rear view mirrors while traveling in reverse. Chase v Marsh, 2018 NY Slip Op 04231, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOW PLOWS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly prohibited cross examination of the plaintiff about his criminal history and plaintiff’s expert properly relied upon hearsay statements by plaintiff’s treating physician:

… [W]hile a civil litigant is granted broad authority to use the criminal convictions of a witness to impeach the credibility of that witness, the nature and extent of cross-examination, including with respect to criminal convictions, remains firmly within the discretion of the trial court … . …

It is well settled that ” opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness’ ” … . It is equally well settled, however, that an expert is permitted to offer opinion testimony based upon facts not in evidence where the material is ” of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ “… . “The professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession’ “… , and “provided that it does not constitute the sole or principal basis for the expert’s opinion” … . Tornatore v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 04145, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL HISTORY (EVIDENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))

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