You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT.

Although the issue was not raised on appeal, the Fourth Department determined the failure to follow the procedure for sentencing a second felony offender required resentencing:

We address the illegality of “the sentence . . . despite defendant’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court or on appeal” … . The presentence report available to the court and uncontested by the parties at sentencing indicates that defendant had been convicted of a prior felony for which he may have been sentenced within the 10-year period preceding commission of the first count of CSCS in the third degree, as tolled by Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (v) and excluding from that statutory period the time during which defendant was incarcerated on the prior felony … . Where, as here, “information available to the court or to the [P]eople prior to sentencing for a felony indicate[d] that . . . defendant may have previously been subjected to a predicate felony conviction” … , “the People were required to file a second felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.21 and, if appropriate, the court was then required to sentence defendant as a second felony offender” …  The People nevertheless failed to file a second felony offender statement herein, and the court illegally sentenced defendant, a known predicate felon, as a first felony drug offender … . Moreover, as the People correctly concede, if defendant was properly sentenced as a first felony drug offender, the imposition of three years of postrelease supervision is illegal because the applicable period for such an offender upon conviction of a class B felony is “not less than one year and no more than two years” … . Inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law. People v Mattice, 2017 NY Slip Op 05558, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)

A JURY’S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department noted that the absence of a verdict on a count of an indictment is the equivalent of an acquittal on that count:

Defendant contends that the judgment must be modified by reversing those parts convicting him under counts 9 and 10 of the indictment because he was not indicted in count 9, which charged two codefendants with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and the jury did not render a verdict on count 10. As the People correctly concede, defendant is correct. It is well settled that “[t]he New York State Constitution guarantees that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a[n] infamous crime . . . unless on indictment of a grand jury’ ” … , and defendant was not charged in count 9 of the indictment. Although defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in count 10 of the indictment, the jury did not render a verdict on that count. It is well settled that a jury’s failure to render a verdict upon every count upon which it was instructed to do so “constitutes an acquittal on every count on which no verdict was rendered”… . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant under counts 9 and 10, and by dismissing count 10 of the indictment with respect to defendant. People v Samuel, 2017 NY Slip Op 05542, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A JURY’S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT)/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, A JURY’S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT)

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action against McDonald, the sole owner, officer and member of a limited liability company (Hyperion). The complaint alleged McDonald had rendered the LLC judgment proof such that it could not satisfy a debt owed to plaintiff. The court further found that the allegations against another party, who was alleged to be an “equitable owner” of the LLC, were not sufficient. Implicit in that ruling was the principle that a non-owner could be liable under a “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory. The concurrence noted the issue whether the “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory could apply to an “equitable” as opposed to “legal” owner of a corporate entity has not been determined in New York:

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges in the amended complaint that McDonald, “through [his] domination of [Hyperion], abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against [her]” …  Plaintiff specifically alleged that McDonald took actions calculated to make Hyperion judgment-proof by undercapitalizing the LLC … , and dissolving and thereafter diverting the assets of Hyperion to a new entity … , without reserving funds to satisfy the judgment debt … . We therefore conclude that, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that McDonald “engaged in acts amounting to an abuse or perversion of the LLC form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against [her]” to survive his motion to dismiss the amended complaint … .

FROM THE CONCURRENCE:

While the principle that a nonshareholder may be liable as an equitable owner has been used by other courts in cases involving piercing the corporate veil … , the Court of Appeals has not expressly decided the issue… . The adoption of that concept by the Court of Appeals would involve wide-ranging policy considerations inasmuch as it would expand the pool of potential defendants subject to an alter ego theory to include non-owners (such as affiliated business entities, managers and employees), and could potentially reduce the protections afforded when forming a business entity. That concern may be even more significant to a limited liability company that, if the members so provide in their articles of organization, may be under the control of a manager or managers, rather than under the control of the members (see Limited Liability Company Law § 408 [a]). Grigsby v Francabandiero, 2017 NY Slip Op 05539, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALTER EGO, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (ALTER EGO,  COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/ALTER EGO (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)

,

ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined that the town’s attempt obtain an injunction requiring respondents to tear down structures which violated the zoning code was invalid. The action was brought by an order to show cause, but no summons or complaint had been filed. Therefore the courts did not have jurisdiction over the matter:

“[T]he valid commencement of an action is a condition precedent to [Supreme Court’s] acquiring the jurisdiction even to entertain an application for a[n] . . . injunction”… . Here, however, there is no action supporting the application for an injunction. Indeed, the order to show cause and supporting papers themselves constitute the only request for an injunction. While ” courts are empowered and indeed directed to convert a civil judicial proceeding not brought in the proper form into one which would be in proper form, rather than to grant a dismissal’ “… , more than improper form is involved here … . Converting the order to show cause and supporting papers into a summons and complaint in these circumstances would effectively permit the Town to seek an injunction by motion, a result that is at odds with the well-established principle that “[t]he pendency of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of a[n] . . . injunction” … . We thus conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Town’s request … . Without an underlying action the order putatively on appeal does not constitute an appealable paper… . The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Matter of Town of Cicero v Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05524, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/INJUNCTIONS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/JURISDICTION (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)

,

MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATION WHICH ALLOWS A LIFETIME DRIVING BAN TO BE IMPOSED UPON DRIVERS WITH MULTIPLE DWI CONVICTIONS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

The Fourth Department determined the regulation which allows the commissioner of motor vehicles to impose a lifetime driver’s license revocation for persons with multiple driving while intoxicated convictions was not unconstitutionally vague:

… [T]he regulation does not give respondent “unfettered discretion” to deny an application. Section 136.5 formalized the manner in which the Commissioner would exercise her discretion by “ensur[ing] that her discretion is exercised consistently and uniformly, such that similarly-situated applicants are treated equally” … . Additionally, the regulation puts the public on notice of respondent’s general policy with respect to relicensing a person whose driver’s license has been revoked for multiple alcohol- or drug-related transgressions … . In petitioner’s case, he faces a lifetime ban because he has at least five such convictions or incidents, as defined in the regulation … . Nevertheless, the Commissioner reserved the discretion to deviate from her general policy in “unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances” … . That exception ensures that respondent has the flexibility to grant an application for relicensing where extraordinary circumstances render the application of the general policy inappropriate or unfair … . Thus, reading the language of the challenged exception within the context of the regulation as a whole, we conclude that 15 NYCRR 136.5 (d) is not unconstitutionally vague. Matter of Gurnsey v Sampson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05350, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED NO PARTNERSHIP HAD BEEN FORMED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROPERLY GRANTED. ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this breach of a partnership agreement action. Defendant demonstrated no partnership had been formed:

“A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit” (Partnership Law § 10 [1]). Where, as here, there is no written partnership agreement between the parties, a court looks to the parties’ conduct, intent, and relationship to determine whether a partnership existed in fact … . The relevant factors are (1) the parties’ intent, whether express or implied; (2) whether there was joint control and management of the business; (3) whether the parties shared both profits and losses; and (4) whether the parties combined their property, skill, or knowledge … . No single factor is determinative; a court considers the parties’ relationship as a whole … .

… [W}e must consider whether the parties expressly or implicitly intended to become partners … . Evidence concerning the parties’ preliminary negotiations bears directly on their intent …  In support of his motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff, the affidavit of defendant, invoices, a lease, and the parties’ correspondence documenting their contract negotiations. That evidence establishes that the parties never shared the intent to become partners. In June 2004, defendant wrote an email to plaintiff suggesting that they discuss “how [they] might be able to work together.” Plaintiff responded that a partnership “might work” and expressed hope that the parties could come to a “workable agreement.” Thereafter, the parties met in person and plaintiff explained that he wanted a 50% share in a partnership. Plaintiff later testified at his deposition that, upon hearing that proposal, defendant had “a look on his face like maybe he wasn’t expecting that,” and did not respond.

Although plaintiff testified that he interpreted defendant’s silence as an agreement to an equal partnership, the documentary evidence undermines any such assumption. * * * … [T]he evidence demonstrates that the parties never shared the intent to enter into a partnership, although they initially had explored the possibility of one. Hammond v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 05337, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S LANE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR-END COLLISION, PLEA TO FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE ONLY IF THE VIOLATION IS UNEXCUSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant raised a question of fact whether the cause of the accident was plaintiff’s sudden lane change. The fact that defendant pled guilty to a traffic violation, following too closely, would constitute negligence per se only if unexcused:

Plaintiff … submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, who stated that he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle until immediately before the accident, when plaintiff moved from the middle lane to the right lane and slammed on his brakes in an instant or quickly, i.e., plaintiff’s action was not a slow and cautious movement to which defendant could react … . Defendant explained that he had not seen plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision because he had been paying attention to the road in front of him and, when plaintiff engaged in his maneuver (changed lanes), defendant slammed on his brakes and tried to steer into the shoulder to avoid the accident, which caused the back end of the trailer that was attached to the truck to swing out, and the left corner of the truck struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiff “failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch as he submitted the deposition testimony in which [defendant] provided a nonnegligent explanation for the collision,” namely, that plaintiff caused the collision when he suddenly changed lanes in response to slowing traffic in the middle and left lanes of the highway and abruptly stopped in the right lane in front of defendant … .

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that he established defendant’s negligence as a matter of law by submitting evidence of defendant’s guilty plea of following too closely (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). “It is well settled that the fact that [the] driver entered a plea of guilty to a Vehicle and Traffic Law offense is only some evidence of negligence and does not establish his negligence per se’ ” … . “Rather, it is the unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [that] constitutes negligence per se’ ” … . Here, upon defendant’s explanation, the trier of fact could excuse the violation on the ground that plaintiff cut in front of defendant and immediately stopped, thereby failing to provide defendant with adequate time to create the “reasonable and prudent” distance between the vehicles that is required by the statute … . Gardner v Chester, 2017 NY Slip Op 05336, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined conclusory allegations that the landlord (Miranda) was an owner of the business (Molly’s Pub)) in which plaintiff’s decedent was injured were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in this wrongful death action:

We agree with Miranda … that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The conclusory allegations in the complaint alleging liability on the same grounds as those alleged against the [pub] defendants based upon the alleged ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub are insufficient to state a cause of action against him. … Miranda submitted the lease, which provides that he shall not be liable for injury to persons or for any defects in the building. He also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he has no ownership interest in Molly’s Pub, that did he not exercise any control over the operation of Molly’s Pub … , that he had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition on the premises and that he was “merely an out-of-possession landlord.” …

‘[W]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support . . . Indeed, a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations” … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support his allegation that Miranda had an ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub. Sager v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05340, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR HUSBAND’S DERIVATIVE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim with respect to husband’s derivative claim stemming from wife’s injuries should have been granted. Because the county was deemed to have knowledge of the wife’s claim within 90 days, the county must also be deemed to have had timely knowledge of the derivative claim:

Here, respondent contends that it did not receive actual knowledge of the facts constituting the husband’s claim because it did not receive knowledge of the injuries or damages claimed by the husband. We reject that contention. “[C]ourts have granted leave to serve a supplemental or amended notice of claim to add a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium . . . where such claim results from the same facts as were alleged in a timely and otherwise admittedly valid notice of claim for personal injuries’ “… . Indeed, courts have generally recognized that derivative causes of action “[are] predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the injured party’s claims … . As a result, where it has been determined that the respondent received timely notice of the injured claimant’s claims, “there can be no claim of prejudice to respondent” resulting from a late notice of a derivative claim (id.).

Although we recognize that claimants did not file a timely notice of claim for the injuries sustained by claimant Melody L. Darrin (wife), the court’s determination to grant the application with respect to her suggests that the court determined that respondent had actual knowledge of the facts underlying her claim. Inasmuch as the husband’s derivative claim is “predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the wife’s claims … , we discern no rational basis upon which the court could have granted the application with respect to the wife but not the husband … . Matter of Darrin v County of Cattaraugus, 2017 NY Slip Op 05352, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) CONDITIONS WERE VIOLATED, THE VIOLATIONS PERTAINED TO DRUG USE, NOT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT’S COCAINE USE TO SEXUAL AROUSAL WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CIVIL COMMITMENT.

The Fourth Department, over a substantive dissent, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of defendant sex offender’s strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) status and the imposition of civil commitment (as a dangerous sex offender). The SIST violations related to cocaine use, not sexual misconduct. Evidence linked defendant’s cocaine use to sexual arousal. The dissent argued such proof was insufficient because there was no showing defendant’s use of cocaine led to his inability to control (as opposed to difficulty in controlling) his sexual behavior:

Here, petitioner’s expert testified that respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder, substance abuse disorder, and severe cocaine and alcohol use disorder. Respondent’s instant SIST violations included the use of cocaine on at least two occasions within one month of release to the community. Respondent has violated the conditions of SIST release on two prior occasions, and those violations also involved cocaine use. Petitioner’s expert described respondent’s cocaine use upon his most recent release to be of an “escalating” nature, and opined that respondent is unable to curb his craving for cocaine and has demonstrated a lack of cooperation with, and resentment toward, substance abuse and sex offender treatment. Petitioner’s expert further opined that respondent’s sex offending behavior is “linked” with his cocaine usage and his sexual arousal has become conditioned to his cocaine usage. Moreover, every examiner who has evaluated respondent has concluded that his sex offending behavior is linked to his substance abuse, and the hearing record contains numerous admissions by respondent that his sex offending behavior is linked to his cocaine use. Petitioner’s expert testified that, based on his Static-99 scores, respondent was at a moderate to high risk of recidivism, and respondent’s score on the Acute-2007 placed him in the high range risk of recidivism. Although respondent’s expert testified that respondent had “put some distance” between his cocaine use and his sex offending behavior, respondent’s expert also agreed that “[t]here’s no doubt that one could lead to the other.” We thus conclude that petitioner established by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s substance abuse was linked to his sex offending behavior and that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement … . Matter of State of New York v William J., 2017 NY Slip Op 05335, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

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