You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the assumption of the risk defense applied in this boating accident case. Plaintiff was in a beginner’s sailing program. Her boat capsized and she was struck by the boom when she attempt to right it. Defendants had not provided any capsize-recovery training:

​

“The assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies as a bar to liability where a consenting participant in sporting or recreational activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ “… . “However, the doctrine of primary assumption of [the] risk will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in sailing, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with sailing by failing to provide any capsize recovery training to plaintiff and by letting plaintiff sail on the lake under the weather conditions present on the day of the accident … . Ulin v Hobart & William Smith Colls., 2018 NY Slip Op 00985, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SAILING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SAILING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/SAILING (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, (2) WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND (3) WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that there were questions of fact whether defendant BGB was liable under Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) as a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB was liable under Labor Law 200 because of its control over the work site and notice of the dangerous condition. In addition the Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the lintel over a doorway fell on plaintiff because of the absence of a safety device (Labor Law 240 (1)). The dissent argued that no safety device was required as a matter of law. With respect to whether BGB was a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB could be liable under Labor Law 200, the court wrote:

“An entity is a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) if it had the power to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors . . . , and an entity is a general contractor if, in addition thereto, it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the . . . project” … . In addition, an entity that serves as “a construction manager may be vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner . . . where the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury’ “… . Here, BGB’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether BGB had the authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work, and thus whether it may be held liable as a general contractor or an agent of the owner … .

​

With regard to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against BGB, we conclude that, contrary to BGB’s contention on its cross appeal, it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact whether it had ” control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’ ” that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries … . Robinson v Spragues Wash. Sq., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01007, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/OWNER, AGENT OF (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the neglect finding:

​

… [W]e agree with the mother that the court erred in determining that she neglected the child inasmuch as the AFC  [attorney for the child] failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the “child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” as a consequence of the mother’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care … . It is well established that “any impairment to the child[ ] must be clearly attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the mother to exercise a minimum degree of care toward’ [the child] . . . , rather than what may be deemed undesirable parental behavior’ ” … . “Indeed, the statutory test is minimum degree of care — not maximum, not best, not ideal” … . Here, the court concluded that, “on one hand, [the mother] may simply be a mother determined to protect her child. On the other hand, she may be a woman determined to cause emotional harm to the father of their child. In either case, the consequence of this course of action may be emotional harm to [the child]” (emphasis added). While the record establishes that the mother’s conduct has been troubling at times, “there is no indication in the record that the child was . . . impaired or in imminent danger of impairment of her physical, mental, or emotional condition as a result of any acts committed by [the mother]” … . Matter of Ellie Jo L.H., 2018 NY Slip Op 00934, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have refused to allow a settlement of this child support proceeding by stipulation. The court had directed that father be jailed for six months for failure to pay child support. Mother agreed that the jail sentence should be suspended in return for immediate payment of $3000 and future payments father could make because of a construction job he had just started:

​

We agree with the father that the court erred in refusing to allow the parties to enter into the settlement agreement … . “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” … . “As a general matter, open court stipulations are especially favored by the courts inasmuch as they promote efficient dispute resolution, timely management of court calendars, and the integrity of the litigation process’ ” …  Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to allow the parties to settle the matter, and we therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings. If the parties no longer wish to settle, we direct the court to hold a new confirmation hearing. Matter of Soldato v Feketa, 2018 NY Slip Op 00989, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY COURT, STIPULATION, CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/STIPULATION (FAMILY COURT, CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/SETTLEMENT (FAMILY COURT, CHILD SUPPORT, STIPULATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a waste management company (Sealand), which had sought to purchase property for use as a land fill, was properly allowed to intervene in an action to determine the validity of a local law which prohibited expansion of the existing land fill:

​

Upon a timely motion, a nonparty is permitted to intervene as of right in an action involving property where the nonparty “may be affected adversely by the judgment” … . Additionally, after considering “whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party,” a court may, in its discretion, permit a nonparty to intervene when, inter alia, the nonparty’s “claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” … . “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012 (a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … . * * *

​

Here, although Sealand did not seek to intervene until several years after it knew its interests in the property may be implicated in the dispute, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion inasmuch as Sealand’s intervention will not delay resolution of the action and defendants will not suffer prejudice … . Sealand does not seek to assert any new claims or to conduct extensive additional discovery but rather, in essence, seeks only to continue the challenge to the 2007 Law on causes of action that remain unresolved despite lengthy litigation … . Where, as here, there is no “showing of prejudice resulting from delay in seeking intervention, the motion should not be denied as untimely” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2018 NY Slip Op 01010, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LAND FILL, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/LAND FILL (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERVENE, MOTION TO  (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (MOTION TO INTERVENE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees in this accountant malpractice action constituted a request for indemnification which was prohibited by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged they hired defendant-accountants to make sure plaintiffs were in compliance with overtime compensation and wage notice requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiffs were subsequently sued on related claims and sought recover of the attorney’s fees expended to settle the suit. The Fourth Department noted that the breach of contract action was not the same as the accountant malpractice action, but that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty actions were duplicative of the breach of contract action:

​

It is well established that “there is no right of contribution or indemnity for employers found liable under the FLSA” … , and the FLSA preempts any conflicting provisions of state labor laws, including those of New York … . A party may not avoid this bar on indemnity by seeking indemnification damages through other legal theories … . In view of the foregoing, we agree with defendants that seeking attorneys’ fees associated with that underlying class action is a request for indemnity … . * * *

​

.. .[w]e reject defendants’ contention that the breach of contract cause of action is duplicative of the accounting malpractice cause of action. The breach of contract cause of action is based on allegations that defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs by failing to perform certain services, and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover all compensation paid to defendants for those unperformed services. That is separate and distinct from the allegations in the accounting malpractice cause of action, which seeks damages based on allegations that defendants did perform services pursuant to the contract but failed to comply with the accepted standards of care. Delphi Healthcare PLLC v Petrella Phillips LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 01012,  Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) (SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE (THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a report written by defendant concerning plaintiff-doctor’s competence was protected by the common interest qualified privilege and was the expression of pure opinion. The competence assessment was done after one of plaintiff’s patients died during surgery:

​

Plaintiff, a doctor employed by defendant Kaleida Health (Kaleida), performed a surgery in which the patient died. As a result of this incident, and pursuant to Kaleida policy, plaintiff underwent a neuropsychological competence assessment by Ralph Benedict, M.D. (defendant). Defendant thereafter submitted a written report detailing his findings and opinions to both Kaleida’s internal review body and plaintiff’s personal physician. …

​

“It is well settled that summary judgment is properly granted [dismissing a defamation cause of action] where a qualified privilege obtains and the plaintiff[] offer[s] an insufficient showing of actual malice” … . Here, defendant established as a matter of law that his written report and associated oral commentary were protected both by the ” common interest’ ” qualified privilege … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of actual malice … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in denying that part of his motion with respect to the defamation causes of action on the alternative ground that the allegedly defamatory statements are expressions of pure opinion … . “Expressions of opinion . . . are deemed privileged and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation” … . Shenoy v Kaleida Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 01008, Fourth Dept  2-9-18

DEFAMATION (COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE  (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support endangering the welfare of a child. The child’s mother was convicted of killing the victim and transporting the victim’s body in a car when her four-year-old daughter was in the car:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that her conviction of endangering the welfare of a child is not based on legally sufficient evidence, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. The charge arose from defendant allegedly having her four-year-old child accompany her when she transported the victim’s body to her mother’s house. Viewing the evidence in support of that charge in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the child’s riding in the car with the victim’s body was likely to result in harm to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the child … . Specifically, the People presented no evidence that the child was aware that the victim’s body was in the car or that the child was upset or bothered by any smells or sights in the car or later at his grandmother’s house … . People v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 00935, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD (EVIDENCE, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))

SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, noted that the failure to mention youthful offender treatment in a plea offer does not constrain the court from considering it:

​

There is no dispute that defendant was eligible … for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10). Nevertheless, based on comments that the court made in denying defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment, it appears that the court believed that it was constrained to deny defendant’s request simply because it was not contemplated by the People’s plea offer. …

“Compliance with CPL 720.20 (1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment” … . Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has held that CPL 720.20 (1) mandates “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant . . . agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … , a new sentencing proceeding is required… . People v Hobbs, 2018 NY Slip Op 00995, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds should not have been granted. The delay attributed to the unavailability of a witness and the related adjournment should not have been charged to the People:

​

We agree with the People that a witness’s one-day unavailability while her father is undergoing heart surgery is an excludable delay that was “occasioned by exceptional circumstances” … . Moreover, the ensuing 21-day adjournment until February 2, 2017 was attributable to the court and not chargeable to the People … , inasmuch as the People had requested a one-day adjournment and “any period of an adjournment in excess of that actually requested by the People is excluded” … . People v Barnett, 2018 NY Slip Op 00968, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (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