You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS AND FATHER SUED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against the county (seeking a determination that the county is obligated to defend and indemnify him) should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son was killed in a car accident. Defendant, who was then a county coroner, without permission, took plaintiff’s son’s brain matter for use in training cadaver dogs. There was a question of fact whether the county was obligated to defend the coroner pursuant to the Public Officers Law, which applies to actions within the scope of employment:

A county’s duty to defend an employee “turns on whether [the employee was] acting within the scope of [his or her] employment,” and whether the obligation to defend the employee “was formally adopted by a local governing body” … . In order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Public Officers Law § 18, it was incumbent on defendant to establish the applicability of that section … . Here, the court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant while still finding that there are issues of fact that bear on the applicability of Public Officers Law § 18 to defendant’s claims … . Dunn v County of Niagara, 2018 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))

WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK WHICH HE DID NOT NEED TO STAND ON TO DO THE WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff slipped off a landscaping rock while working on a business sign. Plaintiff did not need to stand on the rock to do the work, which involved removing letters from the sign. The Labor Law 241 (6) causes of action were not viable because plaintiff did not alleged the rock was slippery or that he tripped over the rock, plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work, and the rock could not be considered debris:

… [T]he court properly denied that part of his motion and granted those parts of defendants’ motions with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that plaintiff was not “obliged to work at an elevation”… , which is a necessary element for recovery under section 240 (1). Indeed, plaintiff’s own deposition testimony submitted in support of his motion established that the work he was performing was at eye level and that he could have reached the sign from the ground. Thus, inasmuch as it was not necessary for plaintiff to stand on the rock to perform his work, he was not exposed to an elevation-related hazard of the type contemplated by section 240 (1) … . Even assuming, arguendo, that a safety device was required to protect plaintiff from such a hazard, we note that plaintiff further testified during his deposition that either of the A-frame ladders that had been provided for his use probably could have straddled the rock, but he thought that a ladder was not necessary … . Maracle v Autoplace Infiniti, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03252, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK WHICH HE DID NOT NEED TO STAND ON TO DO THE WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted, but the Labor Law 241 (6) causes of action were viable. Plaintiff was injured when a safety bar in a Bobcat fell and struck him. The safety bar lowers onto the operator’s lap when the Bobcat is used. The bar fell after plaintiff raised it to step out of the machine:

… [T]he court properly granted defendants’ motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because plaintiff was not injured as the result of any ” physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . We further conclude that, contrary to defendants’ contention on their appeal, the court properly denied their motion with respect to the section 241 (6) claim insofar as it alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) because there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s employer had actual notice of a structural defect or unsafe condition regarding the safety bar … . Finally, we agree with plaintiffs on their cross appeal that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion with respect to the section 241 (6) claim insofar as it alleges a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (3) because that regulation is sufficiently specific to support a claim under section 241 (6) … . Salerno v Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 03251, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT))/BOBCATS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT))

ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was not time barred. The mortgage payments stopped in 2008. But the debt was never accelerated until the foreclosure action was commenced in 2015:

Where, as here, a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due … . Thus, unless the entire debt had been accelerated by the mortgage holder, on the date of a default the statute of limitations begins to run only for the installment payment that became due on that date … .

Here, defendants’ own submissions in support of the motion establish that the mortgage is an installment mortgage, the installment payments are due monthly until January 1, 2035, and defendants defaulted on the payment that was due September 1, 2008. Further, defendants failed to establish that plaintiff accelerated the debt by demanding payment of the entire loan or by commencing a prior foreclosure action. Thus, the action was timely commenced inasmuch as the statute of limitations did not begin to run on the entire debt until the instant action was commenced on February 20, 2015. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Unknown Heirs at Law of Danny Higdon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03274, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​FORECLOSURE (ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, (ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT))

FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not follow the procedures required by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) before determining it did not have jurisdiction over the custody proceeding. Family Court had jurisdiction over father’s custody proceeding when it was commenced, and Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the wife’s custody proceeding when she commenced it there:

Family Court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction and dismissing the proceeding without following the procedures required by the UCCJEA … . The court, after determining that another child custody proceeding had been commenced in Pennsylvania, properly communicated with the Pennsylvania court … . The court erred, however, in failing either to allow the parties to participate in the communication … , or to give the parties “the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction [was] made” … . The court also violated the requirements of the UCCJEA when it failed to create a record of its communication with the Pennsylvania court … . The summary and explanation of the court’s determination following the telephone conference with the Pennsylvania court did not comply with the statutory mandate to make a record of the communication between courts.

We also agree with the father that there are insufficient facts in the record to make a determination, based upon the eight factors set forth in the statute … , regarding which state is the more convenient forum to resolve the issue of custody. “Because Family Court did not articulate its consideration of each of the factors relevant to the . . . petition . . . and we are unable to glean the necessary information from the record, the court’s [implicit] finding that New York was an inconvenient forum to resolve the [custody] petition is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” … . Matter of Beyer v Hofmann, 2018 NY Slip Op 03259, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​FAMILY LAW (UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA), FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) (FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA), FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURISDICTION (FAMILY LAW, UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA), FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a battery cause of action against a teacher and a respondeat superior cause of action against the school should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendant teacher struck her on the back of her head. The complaint alleged a negligence cause of action. Prior to trial plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add the battery and respondeat superior causes of action. The motion was denied. The case went to trial and the jury rendered a defense verdict. Plaintiff will get a new trial on the two causes of action in the amended complaint:

It is well settled that, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted” … . Plaintiff established that the relation-back doctrine applied for statute of limitations purposes with respect to the battery cause of action, which was based on the same facts and occurrence as the negligence cause of action and thus related back to the original complaint (see CPLR 203 [f]…). In opposition to the cross motion, defendants failed to establish that they would be prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint … , inasmuch as the new causes of action were based upon the same facts as the negligence cause of action in the original complaint … .

Defendants argued in opposition to the cross motion that plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, but ” [m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side’ ” … . Therefore, although plaintiff provided no excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend, that is of no moment because, as noted above, defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by the delay … . Wojtalewski v Central Sq. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 03275, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 203 (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, RELATION-BACK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance and actual innocence should not have been denied without a hearing:

… [T]he court erred in denying without a hearing that part of his motion based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s specific claim is that defense counsel failed to secure the presence of a witness who had potentially exculpatory information, and we agree with defendant that such a failure may serve as the basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel … . At trial, defense counsel stated on the record that the witness had been subpoenaed to testify on defendant’s behalf. The witness did not testify, however, and there is nothing in the trial record indicating why. According to defendant’s moving papers, when the witness did not appear to testify, defense counsel merely stated: “Oh, well.” There is no dispute that defense counsel did not attempt to utilize the procedure for securing the trial testimony of a material witness … , or to seek a continuance to obtain the witness’s voluntary compliance with the subpoena. Notably, the witness avers in her affidavit that she was never subpoenaed.

The court denied that part of the motion based on its determination that defendant could have raised his claim on his direct appeal or in his prior CPL 440.10 motions … . That was error. Because the witness resided in another state and went by a different surname, it was not until 2014—after defendant made his two prior CPL 440.10 motions—that defendant was able to obtain an affidavit from her. The affidavit contains information not contained in the trial record and substantially supports defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance. Significantly, it raises an issue of fact whether the witness was ever subpoenaed by defense counsel. That issue of fact is separate and distinct from the witness’s information about the murder itself, which was known to defendant through the 2004 police report. Defendant could not have discovered and raised the issue of fact until 2014, when he was able to identify, locate, and obtain an affidavit from the witness. People v Borcyk, 2018 NY Slip Op 03256, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION,  DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT))/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assault first conviction stemming from defendant’s allowing his dog to attack the victim. The court noted that the motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case was adequate to preserve the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of intent, even though the renewal of the motion at the close of evidence referred to the earlier motion:

The conviction arises from a dog attack that caused the victim to sustain injuries that included broken bones in his hands and the amputation of a portion of one of his fingers. The victim as well as witnesses to the attack testified that two pit bull terriers that had escaped their owner’s property attacked the victim, biting at his arms and legs, as the victim attempted to protect his dog from the pit bulls. Defendant, who was a friend of the owner of the pit bulls, arrived at the scene in a van driven by another man. Defendant exited the van, retrieved the two pit bulls and placed them in the van. After the pit bulls were secured in the van, the victim stood in front of the van and angrily told defendant that the police had been called and “you’re not going anywhere.” Defendant responded by asking the victim, “you coming at me? Are you going to stop me from leaving?” At that point defendant opened the van door and issued a command to the larger pit bull, who attacked the victim a second time, inflicting the injuries to the victim’s hands.

Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as the People failed to prove that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish such intent … . People v Bacon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03258, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT/DOGS (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waiver of appeal was invalid and sent the matter back for a determination of youthful offender status:

Supreme Court did not elicit the waiver until after defendant had pleaded guilty and, in any event, “the record fails to establish that [the court] engaged him in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver was a knowing and voluntary choice” … . Furthermore, “neither the written waiver of the right to appeal in the record nor the court’s brief mention of that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . As the People correctly concede, defendant is an eligible youth, and the sentencing court must make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it” … . People v Willis, 2018 NY Slip Op 03291, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant property owner was the alto ego of plaintiff’s employer (Fox Run) and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for his on the job injury was under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked on a farm and was injured when he fell from a hayloft:

… [W]e conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that it was the alter ego of Fox Run. Defendant and Fox Run were single-member-owned LLCs that were created on the same day “for a single purpose[,] to operate a horse stable business” … . Both defendant and Fox Run had the same individual owner … , and shared the same insurance policy … . Defendant had “[n]o separate set of [financial] books” and “no separate accounting or tax reporting”… .

In addition, defendant had no employees … and “was formed solely for the purpose of owning the premises upon which plaintiff’s employer . . . operate[d]” its horse farm … . Fox Run leased property from no one other than defendant, there was no written lease agreement, and Fox Run did not pay any rent to defendant … . Finally, Fox Run’s owner paid defendant’s property taxes as well as the operating expenses of the property … . Buchwald v 1307 Porterville Rd., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03006, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (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