You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had asserted his right to counsel by saying he would not go to the police station without a parent or an attorney. Therefore the motion to suppress the subsequent statement should have been granted. Before the defendant went to the station, the police, at defendant’s request, took the defendant to see a man defendant described as like a father to him. The man accompanied the police and defendant to the station and spoke with the defendant before the defendant waived his rights a made a statement:

​

In People v Stroh (48 NY2d 1000, 1001), the defendant told the police that “he would like to have either an attorney or a priest to talk to, to have present.’ ” The Court held that, “[b]y making this request, [the defendant] asserted his right to counsel” (id.). We see no relevant distinction in the facts presented in this case, and we are therefore constrained to conclude that the statements made by defendant to the detective at the police station must be suppressed because defendant asserted his right to counsel. …

We conclude that the court’s error is not harmless inasmuch as there is a “reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . We therefore grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the statements made by defendant at the police station … , and we grant a new trial … . People v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 06776, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))

DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the designating petition should not have been invalidated. One of the signatories to the petition had apparently signed on her husband’s behalf because his hands were weak. The wife put her initials next to the signature and testified her husband had given her permission to sign and she had the authority to sign pursuant to a power of attorney. Supreme Court struck all signatures on the relevant page. The Fourth Department held that, at most, only the one signature should have been struck:

​

… [T]he use of a proxy to sign the purported signatory’s name was apparent from the face of the petition sheet. Even assuming, arguendo, that the signature was invalid, we conclude that, in the absence of any hidden infirmity in the petition sheet or in the subscribing witness statement that would potentially “confuse, hinder, or delay any attempt to ascertain or to determine the identity, status, and address” of any signatory or witness … , the court improperly struck the entire page on which the signature appeared … . Only the invalid signature should have been stricken under the circumstances of this case, leaving respondent with 347 signatures, one more than the required 346 … . Matter of Van Der Water v Czarny, 2017 NY Slip Op 06408, Fourth Dept 9-6-17

ELECTION LAW (DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))/DESIGNATING PETITION (ELECTION LAW, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))/SIGNATURES (ELECTION LAW, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))

FAILURE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAW OR PARTY RULE REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION, JUDICIAL INTERVENTION NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner, who sought to have the designating petition of a candidate for town justice declared invalid, did not allege the violation of the Election Law or a party rule. Therefore petitioner was not entitled to judicial intervention:

… [P]etitioner alleges that, at a meeting in April 2017, respondent Town of Greece Republican Committee (Town Committee) endorsed him to be a candidate for the office of Town of Greece Justice, but [*2]a designating petition was prepared that named Granville in place of him, despite the fact that Granville had not been endorsed or even nominated for that office at that meeting. Petitioner alleges that the Town Committee violated its own rules and the rules of respondent Monroe County Republican Committee in failing to circulate a designating petition naming him for the office….

… Petitioner, a member of the Republican Party, “had a bona fide claim” to be the Republican Party’s candidate for the office in question and has standing to challenge the Party’s compliance with its own rules … .

… Judicial intervention is warranted only upon ” a clear showing that a party or its leaders have violated th[e] [Election Law] or the party’s own rules adopted in accordance with law, or otherwise violat[ed] the rights of party members or the electorate’ ” … . Here, petitioner failed to identify any specific provision of the Election Law or rule of the Republican Party that was allegedly violated. Matter of Nitti v Reilich, 2017 NY Slip Op 06327, Fourth Dept 8-23-17

 

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAW OR PARTY RULE REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION, JUDICIAL INTERVENTION NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDICIAL INTERVENTION (ELECTION LAW, FAILURE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAW OR PARTY RULE REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION, JUDICIAL INTERVENTION NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant raised the justification defense in this manslaughter case. Once the defense was raised, the People were required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s act was not justified. The Fourth Department held that the jury’s finding the defendant’s act was not justified was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he People were required to prove either that defendant lacked a subjective belief that her use of deadly physical force was necessary to protect herself against decedent’s use or imminent use of deadly physical force, or that “a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary”… . Although the jury found that the People met that burden, we conclude, upon our independent assessment of the proof… , that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded”… . Defendant’s statements at the scene and in her police interview evinced a belief that deadly force was necessary to protect her from decedent, and we conclude that the People did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that her belief was objectively unreasonable. Instead, the credible evidence established that decedent was in a drunken rage during a heated argument with defendant, that he had threatened “trouble” if the police came, that he had repeatedly forced open doors in the course of pursuing defendant through the apartment, that he was not deterred even when she armed herself with a knife, that he had cornered her in the bathroom and pulled her hair, and that he had grabbed her by the hair to prevent her from leaving the bathroom just before she stabbed him. Under those circumstances, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that defendant lacked a reasonable belief that decedent was about to use deadly physical force against her, even though decedent was not armed … . In other words, this is not a case in which the force employed by defendant ” exceeded that which was necessary to defend [herself]’ ” … . People v Marchant, 2017 NY Slip Op 05918, 4th Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (MANSLAUGHTER,  THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)

, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the county had not sufficiently demonstrated a deliberative decision-making process preceding the installation of a particular type of roadway guard rail. It was alleged plaintiff’s decedent’s car was launched 90 feet after striking the sloping end of the guard rail. The county’s summary judgment motion, based upon qualified immunity, should not have been granted:

We conclude that the County failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment based on qualified immunity … . In particular, the County failed to establish that the decision to change the end assembly of the guide rail from a Type I to a Type II end assembly was “the product of a deliberative decision-making process, of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference”… . Rather, the record reflects that the decision to change the guide rail end assembly was made after Phelps [the guard rail installer] conducted a walk-through and learned that the owners of a hay field needed a “field drive” to allow them to access County Route 41. Although the County submitted evidence that the change order completed by Phelps was signed by FRA [the engineers], there is no showing by the County that there was prior input from FRA regarding the change and, importantly, no analysis to support the decision for the change. Moreover, although the County contended on its motion that it followed the requisite standards of the New York State Department of Transportation, we note that the County’s expert erroneously combined the criteria for two separate uses of Type II end assemblies into one standard. Morris v Ontario County, 2017 NY Slip Op 05533, 4th Dept 7-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, IMMUNITY, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAY DESIGN, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/HIGHWAY DESIGN (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, IMMUNITY, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner was not entitled, as a matter of law, to immunity from a personal injury suit under the “recreational use immunity” provision of the General Obligations Law.  Therefore the landowner’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when the all terrain vehicle (ATV) he was driving struck a pothole on defendant’s dirt road. Pursuant to the General Obligations Law, if the road were deemed suitable for recreational use the landowner would be immune from suit. The majority concluded the road was used for two-way traffic to access homes. Therefore a question of fact had been raised about whether the road was suitable for recreational use within the meaning of the statute:

The road where the accident occurred is the sole means of access to Walker Lake Ontario Road for three homes. Defendant maintains the road by scraping and re-leveling it almost every year. It is wide enough to accommodate one car traveling in each direction. While located in a rural area, the two-lane private road is used for residential purposes, including at times for school bus access. Thus, the physical characteristics of the road are residential, as opposed to recreational in nature … . * * *

… [T]he portion of property where plaintiff fell is not the type of property that the Legislature intended to cover under General Obligations Law § 9-103… . … [C]ourts should ask whether the property “is the sort which the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities as a result of the inducement offered in the statute. In other words, is it a type of property which is not only physically conducive to the particular activity or sport but is also a type which would be appropriate for public use in pursuing the activity as recreation?” … . Application of the statutory immunity to the road at issue would lead to its application to potentially any road in a rural area, which is inconsistent with the idea that this statute is in derogation of the common law and should therefore be narrowly construed … .

FROM THE DISSENT:

We respectfully dissent inasmuch as we conclude that defendant, the property owner, is entitled to immunity from liability under the recreational use statute (see General Obligations Law § 9-103). In particular, we disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the property at issue is not suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his accident, i.e., operation of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). We would therefore affirm the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Cummings v Manville, 2017 NY Slip Op 05530, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/IMMUNITY (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (NEGLIGENCE, RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the initial accident was not the proximate cause of the third accident in which plaintiff was injured. In the initial accident a car driven by Sheehan struck a barrier. The Sheehan car was left in the roadway.  Plaintiff, who was not injured, got out of the Sheehan car and went to a safe area. The Sheehan car was then struck by another car driven by a non-party. Plaintiff went back to the accident scene where he was injured when there was yet another collision involving a third car driven by Gilray. The majority held that the initial accident created a condition for the accident which injured plaintiff, but was not the proximate cause of that accident:

Sheehan’s negligence, if any, ” did nothing more than to furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which [plaintiff’s] injury was made possible and which was brought about by the intervention of a new, independent and efficient cause’ ” … .  Prior to the Gilray accident, the situation resulting from the first accident “was a static, completed occurrence” with plaintiff and all of the passengers of Sheehan’s vehicle safely off the roadway … . The Gilray accident arose from a “new and independent cause and not as [the] consequence of [Sheehan’s] original act[]” … . “The risk undertaken by plaintiff” in returning to the roadway was created by himself … .

FROM THE DISSENT:

Under the circumstances of this case, a factfinder could reasonably conclude that a foreseeable consequence of Sheehan’s negligence in losing control, striking the barrier, and leaving the disabled vehicle obstructing the left lane of a divided roadway without activating the flashing hazard lights at night is that motorists, unable to see the vehicle at they approached, would strike it… . In determining that the situation resulting from Sheehan’s accident was a static, completed occurrence prior to Gilray’s collision, the majority fails to account for the critical facts that the disabled vehicle was not moved safely off the roadway and instead remained in a position of peril obstructing the left lane without its flashing hazard lights activated, and that plaintiff was injured while positioned near the disabled vehicle … . Plaintiff’s positioning of himself in the area of the disabled vehicle where he was susceptible to further harm is also foreseeable. The fact that plaintiff, as a passenger involved in a vehicular accident, would leave a place of safety to return to the vehicle to speak with a responding officer—particularly where, as here, plaintiff was best positioned to provide the officer with information given the condition and preoccupation of Sheehan and the other passengers—is “an entirely normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by [Sheehan’s] negligence”… . Serrano v Gilray, 2017 NY Slip Op 05523, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PROXIMATE CAUSE, INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT)

BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in the action by a real estate broker seeking a commission based upon a lease should have been granted. The broker had negotiated the original lease in 2001 and was paid a commission. The question was whether the second lease in 2011 was a renewal of the original lease or a new lease, for which no commission was due. The Fourth Department held the 2011 lease was a new lease:

… [W]e agree with defendants that they met their burden on their motion by establishing that the 2011 lease was a new lease, rather than a renewal of the 2001 lease. In support of their motion, defendants submitted evidence establishing that, under the 2011 lease, HealthNow was leasing only part of the subject building, rather than the whole building as called for under the 2001 lease. In addition, the 2011 lease called for First Columbia [landlord] to make structural changes to the building to accommodate HealthNow’s [tenant’s] changing needs, and to install a backup generator at a cost in excess of $300,000. Furthermore, the rent was higher in the 2011 lease, it was not calculated in accordance with the terms for a renewal as provided in the 2001 lease, and the 2011 lease was for a term of seven years, whereas the 2001 lease called for a renewal term of five years. Finally, defendants established that the 2011 lease was not the result of any brokerage services performed by plaintiff. Baumann Realtors, Inc. v First Columbia Century-30, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05546, 4th Dept 7-7-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/LEASES (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, COMMISSIONS, LEASES, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/COMMISSIONS (REAL ESTATE BROKERS, LEASES, , BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court should have granted the People’s request for an adjournment after two deputies did not show up for a Mapp hearing:

We agree with the People that the court erred in refusing to grant their request for an adjournment. It is well settled that “the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court”… . There are, however, well settled considerations to help guide a court in the exercise of its discretion. As relevant herein, for instance, “when [a] witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others” … . Additional relevant considerations in determining whether to grant a request for an adjournment include whether it was the moving party’s first request, whether the subject witness or witnesses would offer material testimony favorable to that party, and the degree of prejudice to the nonmovant … . Here, the deputies who conducted the warrantless search were under subpoena and were identified to the court. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court was entitled to rely on the prosecutor’s representation in open court concerning the issuance of subpoenas inasmuch as a prosecutor is an officer of the court with an ” unqualified duty of scrupulous candor’ ” … . Moreover, the request was the People’s first request for an adjournment, the testimony of the witnesses would be material and favorable to the People, and there was minimal prejudice to defendant, who had been released from custody on his own recognizance. In contrast, the People suffered severe prejudice because the refusal to grant an adjournment resulted in the suppression of all physical evidence. People v Schafer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05551, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/ADJOURNMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Although plaintiff’s decedent fell from either a ladder or a scaffold (no witnesses) there was no evidence the ladder tipped or the scaffold was defective:

“A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) by establishing that he or she was subject to an elevation-related risk, and [that] the failure to provide any safety devices to protect the worker from such a risk [was] a proximate cause of his or her injuries’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that the safety ladder used by decedent did not tip, and that the scaffolding did not collapse, tip, or shift. Decedent, himself the only witness to the accident, was unable to provide any testimony or statement concerning how the accident happened. Thus, we note that this case is unlike those cases in which the plaintiff’s version of his or her fall is uncontroverted because the plaintiff is the only witness thereto … .

It is now axiomatic that “[t]he simple fact that plaintiff fell from a ladder [or a scaffold] does not automatically establish liability on the part of [defendants]”… . Thus, we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff met her initial burden on her motion by simply establishing that decedent fell from a height. We further conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raise triable issues of fact as to, inter alia, how the accident happened, from where decedent fell—the ladder or the scaffold, and whether a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) occurred. Hastedt v Bovis Lend Lease Holdings, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05522, 4th Dept 7-7-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH 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