You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of serious physical injury, an element of the gang assault charge, was supported by sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury. However, prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings warranted dismissal of the indictment (the People may represent however):

​

We agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. While the medical records introduced in evidence were uncertified and were thus hearsay, the victim himself was competent to testify to “readily apparent external physical injuries of which he obviously [had] personal knowledge” … .

​

We agree with the court, however, that the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of improper conduct at the grand jury proceeding that warranted dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the integrity of the proceeding was impaired … .. The prosecutor acted improperly in repeatedly asking leading questions of his witnesses … , and in introducing hearsay evidence … . During his cross-examination of defendants, the prosecutor improperly asked them whether other witnesses were lying … ., and he asked Blauvelt, without any evident good faith basis, whether defendants used illegal drugs on the night of the altercation and whether they used steroids in general … .. “Most egregiously,” as described by the court, the prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness by stating personal opinions relevant to material issues during his instructions to the grand jury, i.e., that younger people are more likely than older people to start fights, and that the victim’s injuries must have resulted from “a substantial beating” … . We remind the People that a prosecutor owes “a duty of fair dealing to the accused” at a grand jury proceeding and, more generally, that a prosecutor “serves a dual role as advocate and public officer,” and must “not only . . . seek convictions but [must] also . . . see that justice is done” … . People v Blauvelt, 2017 NY Slip Op 08948, Fourth Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM WAS SUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the decision vacating an order concerning a counterclaim in a prior appeal was the law of the case, despite the “otherwise affirmed” phrase in the decision, and Supreme Court should not have adhered to a prior ruling on the counterclaim in Supreme Court. The Fourth Department further held that Supreme Court properly found a report prepared by an accountant was prepared in anticipation of litigation and was not discoverable as a “mixed file:”

​

“An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on . . . Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [T]he “law of the case” operates to foreclose re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law’ “… . Nevertheless, “where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of . . . law of the case no longer applies . . . Indeed, a vacated judgment has no preclusive force either as a matter of collateral or direct estoppel or as a matter of the law of the case’ “… . While this Court may have “otherwise affirmed” the order insofar as it concerned the issues unrelated to the counterclaim, we dismissed the appeal from that part of the order concerning the counterclaim and vacated the judgment. That necessarily means that any determinations related to the counterclaim were not encompassed by the “otherwise affirmed” language related to the order … . Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2017 NY Slip Op 08120, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MATERIAL PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANTS (PRIVILEGE, REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that CPLR 3404, which deems an action abandoned if not restored within a year of being marked off or struck from the calendar, does not apply to cases where a note of issue was filed but subsequently was vacated. The 1st and 2nd Department adhere to this view, the 3rd Department does not:

In accordance with the tenor and spirit of our existing case law, we now explicitly adopt the 1st and 2nd Departments’ rule, and reject the 3rd Department’s. It is axiomatic that CPLR 3404 has no applicability in the absence of an extant and valid note of issue … , and we agree with the Second Department that “[t]he vacatur of a note of issue . . . returns the case to pre-note of issue status [and] does not constitute a marking off’ or striking the case from the court’s calendar within the meaning of CPLR 3404” … . To state the obvious, a note of issue does not survive its own vacatur, and it makes no sense to apply CPLR 3404 when the statute’s operative premise—i.e., the continuing vitality of the note of issue—no longer exists. Bradley v Konakanchi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08125, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3403 (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTE OF ISSUE  (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CPLR 3404, WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this fatal car accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ decedent was killed when the car in which he was a passenger entered a park at night and crashed after failing to negotiate a curve in the road. The driver, Benedict, was intoxicated and there was evidence the car was driven at high speed. Although a sign at the park indicated it was closed at dusk, the gate was open, there were no signs indicating an upcoming  curve in the road, and there were no speed limit signs. The driver had never been on the road before:

​

A municipality has a duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition “in order to guard against contemplated and foreseeable risks to motorists,” including risks related to a driver’s negligence or misconduct… . In other words, a municipality is not relieved of liability for failure to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition “whenever [an accident] involves driver error” … . Defendant’s duty to maintain the road was therefore not negated by Benedict’s intoxication or the fact that the park was closed when the accident occurred … , and we conclude that defendant did not establish as a matter of law that Benedict’s presence under those circumstances was unforeseeable … . Inasmuch as defendant presented no evidence that the road was reasonably safe at night in the absence of the safety measures proposed by plaintiffs, we conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it was not negligent … .

We further agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in determining as a matter of law that Benedict’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Although defendant presented evidence that Benedict was intoxicated and driving “at high speed,” we conclude that its submissions did not establish as a matter of law that Benedict’s manner of driving “would have been the same” if the safety measures proposed by plaintiffs had been in place … . Stiggins v Town of N. Dansville, 2017 NY Slip Op 08108, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. There was evidence plaintiff’s son, who was riding in a pickup truck with defendant’s son, may have voluntarily participated in a drag race which led to the accident and the death of plaintiff’s son:

​

Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the accident occurred during an “illegal street race” in which plaintiff’s son participated, that his death was the direct result of his own serious violation of the law, and that recovery on his behalf was therefore precluded as a matter of public policy under the rule of Barker v Kallash (63 NY2d 19 [1984]) and Manning v Brown (91 NY2d 116 [1997]). In the alternative, defendants sought summary judgment on the issue whether plaintiff’s son had been comparatively negligent. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendants’ cross motion, and defendants appeal.

We agree with defendants that the Barker/Manning rule may apply to a high-speed street race between motor vehicles, i.e., “a drag race as that term is commonly understood” … , even if the participants did not plan a particular race course and the incident thus did not qualify as a “speed contest” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182 (a) (1)… . The record here, however, supports conflicting inferences with respect to whether defendants’ son was engaged in a race with other pickup truck drivers … and, if so, whether plaintiff’s son was a “willing participant” in the race … . Thus, the applicability of the Barker/Manning rule is an issue of fact … . In addition, there are issues of fact with respect to the alleged comparative negligence of plaintiff’s son in choosing to ride with defendants’ son, in view of evidence that defendants’ son was under the influence of alcohol and had said that he intended to “chase . . . down” the other trucks … . We therefore conclude that the court properly denied defendants’ cross motion but erred in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion with respect to the culpable conduct defense, and we modify the order accordingly. Kovach v McCollum, 2017 NY Slip Op 08121, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/DRAG RACE (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/BARKER-MANNING RULE (NEGLIGENCE, DRAG RACE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (DRAG RACE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly found that the sheriff abused his discretion when he refused to allow petitioner, a deputy sheriff, to withdraw his resignation. The deputy resigned after the sheriff told him he would be fired if he didn’t resign:

​

It is well settled that ” [a] resignation under coercion or duress is not a voluntary act and may be nullified’ ” … . Although a threat to terminate an employee does not constitute duress if the person making the threat has the legal right to terminate the employee … , such a threat does constitute duress if it is wrongful and precludes the exercise of free will … . It follows that a resignation obtained under the threat of wrongful termination is involuntary and may be withdrawn upon request, and that it is an abuse of discretion for an officer to deny such a request … .

Here, petitioner tendered his resignation under the threat of wrongful termination, and we therefore conclude that the Sheriff abused his discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw the resignation. Civil Service Law § 75 provides that a public employer may not terminate or otherwise discipline certain public employees “except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges” … . A covered employee “against whom removal or other disciplinary action is proposed shall have written notice thereof and of the reasons therefor, shall be furnished a copy of the charges preferred against him and shall be allowed at least eight days for answering the same in writing” … . Thereafter, a hearing must be held … . There is no dispute that petitioner was covered by the statute and that he was not provided with the requisite predisciplinary hearing. Thus, the Sheriff had no legal right to terminate him.  Matter of Ortlieb v Lewis County Sheriff’s Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 08115, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW,  DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action (as well as a Labor law 241 (6) cause of action). Plaintiff was struck when a bundle of rebar that was being hoisted fell. Plaintiff’s actions in placing chokers on the rebar to allow the rebar to be hoisted were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Others were involved in preparing the rebar for hoisting:

​

To recover under section 240 (1) for injuries sustained in a falling object case, a plaintiff must establish “both (1) that the object was being hoisted or secured, or that it required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiff established those factors and therefore met his burden on his motion. We note, in particular, that the deposition testimony and two witness affidavits tendered by plaintiff established “that any safety devices in fact used[, i.e., the chokers] failed in [their] core objective of preventing the [rebar] from falling,’ ” and that such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . In opposition, defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact inasmuch as the opinions of their expert were conclusory … .

Contrary to defendants’ further contention, plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries. “[W]here a plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . To establish their “sole proximate cause” theory, defendants were required to present “some evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff [was] the sole proximate cause of his . . . injuries” … . Here, the record establishes that plaintiff was not alone in rigging the rebar bundle and transporting it to a different area of the construction site, and thus plaintiff’s conduct could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s action in participating in the rigging process raises, at most, an issue concerning his comparative negligence, which is not an available defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08117, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

QDRO WAS ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE VACATED THE QDRO, LACHES INAPPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) should have been vacated because the separation agreement called for the QDRO to terminate upon the wife’s (plaintiff’s) remarriage, which took place in 1995. The doctrine of laches was inapplicable:

​

“A QDRO obtained pursuant to a separation agreement can convey only those rights . . . which the parties [agreed to] as a basis for the judgment’ “… . Thus, it is well established that “a court errs in granting . . . a QDRO more expansive than an underlying written separation agreement” … , regardless whether the parties or their attorneys approved the QDRO without objecting to the inconsistency … . Under such circumstances, the court has the authority to vacate or amend the QDRO as appropriate to reflect the provisions of the separation agreement … . Here, the QDRO should never have been entered in the first instance because the clear and unambiguous language of the separation agreement provided that plaintiff’s rights in defendant’s pension benefits had terminated upon her remarriage.

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant is barred by laches from seeking to vacate the QDRO. “The defense of laches requires both delay in bringing an action and a showing of prejudice to the adverse party” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a delay in seeking to vacate the QDRO, we conclude that plaintiff has not demonstrated that she was prejudiced by that delay … . Santillo v Santillo, 2017 NY Slip Op 08155, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (QDRO WAS ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE VACATED THE QDRO, LACHES INAPPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIOINS ORDER (QDRO)  (QDRO WAS ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE VACATED THE QDRO, LACHES INAPPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT))’LACHES (FAMILY LAW. MOTION TO VACATE QDRO, QDRO WAS ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE VACATED THE QDRO, LACHES INAPPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relocation/custody modification issues required a hearing focusing on the best interests of the child:

​

We agree with the father that the court erred in giving him a deadline to relocate within the 15-mile radius provided in the [Separation] Agreement without conducting a hearing, and that the court further erred in denying that part of the father’s cross motion seeking modification of the custody and visitation provisions of the Agreement, also without conducting a hearing. …

While ” [a] hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order’ ” … , here we conclude that the combined effect of the parties’ “relocation[s] was a change of circumstances warranting a reexamination of the existing custody arrangement” at an evidentiary hearing … . While the parties’ Agreement provided that the father must reside within a 15-mile radius of the mother’s residence upon her relocation, the overriding consideration in determining whether to enforce such a provision is the child’s best interests … .. It is impossible to determine on this record the effect on the child of enforcing or modifying the Agreement, and we conclude that the parties should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence concerning the child’s best interests. Shaw v Shaw, 2017 NY Slip Op 08138, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff, an associate in defendant law firm, was entitled to 5% of the $5 million fee collected by the law firm in an action on behalf of a client brought in by the associate. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under the Labor Law 190 cause of action, as well as under the breach of contract cause of action. The Fourth Department determined the verdict on the Labor Law 190 cause of action should have been set aside because, under the law described in the jury instructions, the jury should have found the payment to be “incentive compensation” which is excluded from the type of pay covered by the Labor Law:

​

Applying the facts to the law as stated in the jury charge, the evidence establishes that the collections bonus was “incentive compensation” because it was based on more than just plaintiff’s performance. Among other things, the matter took considerable effort from other attorneys, some of whom billed far more hours on the matter than plaintiff, and a partner conducted international arbitration and filed enforcement proceedings to secure a settlement collectible by the client. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, inasmuch as the collections bonus was calculated as a percentage of the fee in the matter and “the fee collected” by defendant was based on the abovementioned factors outside of plaintiff’s control, the jury could not have rationally concluded that the collections bonus was anything other than “incentive compensation” excluded from protection under Labor Law § 193 (1). …

​

… [T]he evidence adduced by plaintiff established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in which at least one of defendant’s partners promised to pay plaintiff a bonus consisting of 5% of the fee collections from any client generated by plaintiff if such fees exceeded $100,000, that plaintiff subsequently performed under the agreement by generating the client, and that defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the collections bonus, thereby causing plaintiff to incur damages … . Doolittle v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 08126, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (INCENTIVE COMPENSATION, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (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