You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the sentence imposed based upon failure to pay restitution was harsh and excessive:

… [T]he sentence imposed by County Court is unduly harsh and severe. The sole basis for the declaration of delinquency was defendant’s failure to pay restitution to the victims of his crimes, and the declaration was filed approximately four months after defendant was placed on probation. Defendant admitted to the violation and, by the time of sentencing, he had paid $2,500 of the $17,775 he owed in restitution. The court nevertheless revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the maximum term of imprisonment for each offense with the sentences running consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 3⅓ to 10 years.

Inasmuch as defendant’s crimes are nonviolent and he had no prior criminal record aside from a misdemeanor charge to which he pleaded guilty the day before his plea in this case, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences run concurrently, thus reducing the aggregate sentence to 2⅓ to 7 years … .  People v Lloyd, 2018 NY Slip Op 03032, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE (FOURTH DEPT))/HARSH AND SEVERE (SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE (FOURTH DEPT))

THE PEOPLE’S GROUND FOR STEP ONE OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE PROCEDURE WAS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO STEP TWO AND THE JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment because of the court’s errors in handling a Batson challenge. The People argued that defense counsel was using all peremptory challenges to exclude women, which was not the case. The court accepted the argument and proceeded to step two of the Batson procedure by asking defense counsel for a gender neutral explanation. Defense counsel stated that the potential juror was a nurse and may have seen victims of domestic abuse. The judge did not accept defense counsel’s reason. The Fourth Department found that step one of the procedure was flawed because defense counsel had excluded both men and women, and noted that the reason given by defense counsel for step two was sufficient:

… [T]he issue whether the People established a prima facie case of discrimination at step one of the Batson inquiry is not moot. Whether a Batson applicant made out a prima facie case of discrimination is moot only if the court proceeded to step three of the inquiry and ” has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination’ “… . Here, however, the court “stopped at step two and wrongly stated that the proffered reason for the challenge was not [gender] neutral[, and thus] . . . it cannot be said that the trial court [had] ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination’ “… .

With respect to the merits of defendant’s contention concerning the step one inquiry, we agree with him that the People failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The only ground asserted by the People in support of their Batson application was that every peremptory challenge exercised by defendant was used to strike a woman from the jury panel. As defendant argued in opposition, the People’s assertion was incorrect. In fact, defendant had previously exercised peremptory challenges to excuse two men from the jury panel. Thus, the only fact articulated by the People in support of their Batson application is belied by the record. Inasmuch as the People failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, the court erred in proceeding to step two of the inquiry and ultimately in seating the juror notwithstanding defendant’s peremptory challenge … . People v Smouse, 2018 NY Slip Op 02921, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, BATSON, THE PEOPLE’S GROUND FOR STEP ONE OF THEIR BATSON CHALLENGE WAS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO STEP TWO AND THE JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEATED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BATSON, THE PEOPLE’S GROUND FOR STEP ONE OF THEIR BATSON CHALLENGE WAS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO STEP TWO AND THE JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEATED (FOURTH DEPT))/BATSON CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, THE PEOPLE’S GROUND FOR STEP ONE OF THEIR BATSON CHALLENGE WAS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO STEP TWO AND THE JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEATED (FOURTH DEPT))

UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, in a matter of first impression, determined a defendant convicted of a qualifying drug felony cannot, under the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA), be sentenced as a persistent felony offender (PFO):

In March 2016, defendant, by counsel, moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his sentence on the ground that he was illegally sentenced as a PFO. Defendant contended that, because the crimes of CPCS in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and CSCS in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]) fall within Penal Law article 220, a defendant convicted of those crimes is not subject to sentencing as a PFO. Defendant contended that the 2004 DLRA removed the trial court’s discretion to sentence a defendant convicted of controlled substance or marihuana offenses as a PFO. * * *

The plain language of the statutes is clear that, when a defendant is convicted of a drug offense, he or she must be sentenced under the provisions outlined by Penal Law § 60.04, “notwithstanding the provisions of any law.” Thus, inasmuch as section 60.04 does not authorize sentencing such a defendant as a PFO, such a defendant cannot be sentenced pursuant to any provisions that do authorize sentencing as a PFO. While there are no definitive rulings on this issue by the Court of Appeals or any of the Appellate Divisions, trial courts have held that a drug offender is ineligible for PFO sentencing … .

As noted by the Court of Appeals, “when the legislature enacted the . . . DLRA, it sought to ameliorate the excessive punishments meted out to low-level, nonviolent drug offenders under the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws, and therefore the statute is designed to spread relief as widely as possible, within the bounds of reason, to its intended beneficiaries” … . We believe that our interpretation of the DLRA is consistent with the remedial purpose of the DLRA, and we therefore conclude that Penal Law §§ 60.04 and 70.70 operate to preclude a court from sentencing a defendant found guilty of a qualifying drug felony as a PFO. People v Boykins, 2018 NY Slip Op 02919, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER, UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER, UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DLRA), UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))

PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S FEE WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the cause action alleging defendant attorney’s fee was unconscionable should not have been dismissed. The court further determined that plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendant’s attorney because plaintiff had initially consulted with an attorney at the defendant’s attorney’s firm was properly denied:

Accepting as true the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, we conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability. As for procedural unconscionability, plaintiff alleged that, before entering into the agreement, he was not informed of the nature of the anticipated charges or the prospects of incarceration, and he was led to believe that defendant would be able to resolve the case without a prison sentence. At the time he entered into the agreement, plaintiff was in the hospital, and defendant was, or was perceived to be, an experienced attorney with unparalleled expertise in defending against cases involving driving while intoxicated. As for substantive unconscionability, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s $125,000 fee was at least three times larger than, and thus drastically out of proportion with, fees charged in similar cases. We further conclude that defendant’s evidentiary submissions in support of the motion, which included his own affidavit and that of an expert, did not conclusively establish that the agreement was ” fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood’ ” by plaintiff … . …

[The submitted] affidavits establish that the attorney with whom plaintiff consulted had no recollection and kept no notes of the consultation, did not share with defendant’s attorney any information that he learned during the consultation, and would not discuss the present action with defendant’s attorney in the future. Furthermore, the affidavits establish that the law firm employs screening procedures consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct and that defendant’s attorney would not be sharing any fees with the attorney with whom plaintiff consulted. Thus, the affidavits establish compliance with rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), and we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion … . Divito v Fiandach, 2018 NY Slip Op 02922, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

ATTORNEYS (PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S FEE WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (UNCONSCIONABLE, PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S FEE WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/UNCONSCIONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES  (PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S FEE WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEYS (MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to the costs of serving the defendant by alternate means after defendant failed to return the acknowledgment of receipt (of service by mail) was not returned within 30 days:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action by serving defendants by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a (a) and thereafter utilized “an alternative method” of service of process when “the acknowledgment of receipt” was not returned by defendants or the other persons set forth in CPLR 312-a (b) within the requisite 30-day period. Plaintiff moved for, inter alia, an immediate judgment in the amount of $110.53, i.e., the amount expended by plaintiff in serving defendants by the alternative method of service of process … . … Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion… . Here, plaintiff submitted prima facie evidence that his attorney mailed the requisite documents to defendants pursuant to CPLR 312-a (a), and defendants failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to that service. McGriff v Mallory, 2018 NY Slip Op 03003, Third Dept 4-26-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 312-a  (COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, COST OF (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the nuisance and trespass actions based upon the alleged diversion of surface water were not continuing torts and were therefore time-barred:

Defendants established that the nuisance and trespass causes of action accrued, at the latest, in June 2010, which is when plaintiff received the information from the USACE [US Army Corps of Engineers] and the damage to its property was apparent … .

Plaintiff contends that, because the water flows continually onto its property, the torts are continuous in nature and, as a result, plaintiff’s causes of action for nuisance and trespass are not time-barred. We reject that contention. Courts will apply the continuing wrong doctrine in cases of ” nuisance or continuing trespass where the harm sustained by the complaining party is not exclusively traced to the day when the original objectionable act was committed’ “… . Here, plaintiff’s allegations establish that its damages may be traced to a specific, objectionable act, i.e., the implementation of the remedial plan. Where, as here, there is an original, objectionable act, “the accrual date does not change as a result of continuing consequential damages” … . EPK Props., LLC v PFOHL Bros. Landfill Site Steering Comm., 2018 NY Slip Op 02085, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/NUISANCE (SURFACE WATER, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRESPASS (SURFACE WATER, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/SURFACE WATER (NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer involved a traffic accident with plaintiff was proceeding through a red light or a green light on his way to an (another) accident scene. If the light was red, the reckless disregard standard would apply to the officer’s driving. If the light was green, the normal negligence standard would apply:

We reject defendants’ contention that the color of the traffic light is not a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment. If the factfinder determines that defendant officer was engaged in the exempt conduct of proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [2]), then the reckless disregard standard of care would apply under the circumstances presented herein … . If, however, the factfinder credits defendant officer’s account that he was proceeding through a green light, then the alleged injury-causing conduct by defendant officer would be governed by principles of ordinary negligence… . Inasmuch as the resolution of that factual issue will determine the standard of care by which the factfinder must evaluate defendant officer’s conduct … , we conclude that the court erred in determining on the submissions before it that the reckless disregard standard applies as a matter of law. Furthermore, the determination of the color of the traffic light at the time of the collision, and each driver’s compliance with the standard of care that will apply upon resolution of that material factual issue, depends on the memory and credibility of witnesses … . Inasmuch as a court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is ” issue-finding, rather than issue-determination’ ” … , we reject defendants’ contention that they are entitled to summary judgment at this juncture … . Oddo v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02041, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action based upon a cancer misdiagnosis was time-barred. The misdiagnosis was made before the statute of limitations for cancer misdiagnosis was changed (it now runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the misdiagnosis). The court rejected the attempt to extend the statute of limitations by asserting fraud-related causes of action based upon the malpractice and alleged concealment of the misdiagnosis:

Defendants … contend that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that they are not estopped from invoking the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. We agree. “The elements of a cause of action for fraud in connection with charges of medical malpractice are knowledge on the part of the physician of the fact of his [or her] malpractice and of [the] patient’s injury in consequence thereof, coupled with a subsequent intentional, material misrepresentation by [the physician] to [the] patient known by [the physician] to be false at the time it was made, and on which the patient [justifiably] relied to his [or her] damage’ ” … . “The damages resulting from the fraud must be separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice” … . Additionally, “a defendant may be estopped to plead the [s]tatute of [l]imitations where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action”… . However, “without more, concealment by a physician or failure to disclose his [or her] own malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action in fraud or deceit separate and different from the customary malpractice action, thereby entitling the plaintiff to bring his [or her] action within the longer period limited for such claims” … . Forbes v Caris Life Sciences, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02086, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a report concerning an investigation by the Department of Health which cited defendant health system for failure to inform plaintiff and his family of the unintentional disconnection of a heart-lung machine was not subject to disclosure:

Defendant met its burden of establishing that the information contained in the report was ” generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j’ “… . Thus, the information contained in the report is expressly exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to the confidentiality conferred on information gathered by defendant in accordance with Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention that the privilege is “negated” because the report purportedly contains information that was improperly omitted from Pasek’s [plaintiff’s] medical records, it is well settled that “information which is privileged is not subject to disclosure no matter how strong the showing of need or relevancy”… . Indeed, the purpose of the privilege “is to enhance the objectivity of the review process’ and to assure that medical review [or quality assurance] committees may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered’ by hospitals . . . , and thereby improve the quality of medical care” … . Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02069, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant school district could not have foreseen the incident in which the plaintiff’s high school classmate injured plaintiff in gym class. The classmate put plaintiff in a choke hold from behind and plaintiff fell to the floor on his face. The classmate’s violent behavior when he was younger, three years before the gym class incident, was deemed insufficient to put the school on notice of the classmate’s propensity for violence:

“In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct is generally required because, obviously, school personnel cannot reasonably be expected to guard against all of the sudden, spontaneous acts that take place among students daily” … . Thus, “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … . “Summary judgment must be granted if the proponent makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact,’ and the opponent fails to rebut that showing” … . …

Defendant’s submissions … established that there were no prior incidents and no history of any animosity between the two students … . Indeed, the classmate testified that he intended only to “horse around” and that he “[d]idn’t mean anything by it.” Moreover, the classmate had never engaged in disorderly, insubordinate, disruptive, or violent conduct in any of the gym teacher’s classes prior to the subject incident. … [W]e agree with defendant that the classmate’s overall disciplinary record is insufficient to create an issue of fact whether the subject incident could reasonably have been anticipated. Although the classmate had an extensive disciplinary history, the majority of the incidents involved insubordinate and disruptive behavior, and the instances of violent and endangering conduct occurred when the classmate was in sixth through eighth grade, with his last citation for violent conduct occurring in April 2009, i.e., three years prior to the subject incident when the classmate was in 11th grade … . We thus conclude that the classmate’s prior violent and endangering conduct was too remote to provide defendant with sufficiently specific knowledge or notice that the classmate posed a danger to other students in gym class … . Hale v Holley Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 02033, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/STUDENTS (ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (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