You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

COUNTY LAW 308 DOES NOT PROHIBIT DISCOVERY OF 911 CALL RECORDS IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT, INCLUDING THE RECORDS OF 911 CALLS MADE BY NONPARTIES.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, determined Supreme Court properly ordered the county to provide to plaintiff records of 911 calls made during a severe winter storm. Plaintiff’s decedent was stranded in his car during the storm and called 911 for help. Help did not arrive until nearly 24 hours later, after plaintiff’s decedent died. In addition to the records of plaintiff’s decedent’s 911 call (which the county provided), plaintiff sought records of 911 calls made by others during the storm. The county argued the list of parties allowed access to 911 call records in County Law § 308 (4) was exclusive, and did not include parties in civil lawsuits. The Fourth Department determined the county’s argument was not supported by the legislative history of the statute:

Here, the context and legislative history of section 308 (4) paint a different picture than defendants’ de-contextualized analysis suggests. Section 308 was enacted as part of article 6 of the County Law, which contains 59 discrete provisions related almost exclusively to the financing of a uniform, statewide telephonic emergency response system. * * *

… County Law § 300 reveals unmistakably that the Legislature was motivated to adopt County Law article 6 in order to update the emergency response system across the State and to mitigate the financial burden of that endeavor for local governments. It is hardly surprising, then, that section 308 (4) lacks the hallmark language of other statutory provisions which specifically cut off a civil litigant’s access to certain classes of evidentiary materials for reasons of public policy… .

The relevant legislative history lends further support to our conclusion that the Legislature did not enact section 308 (4) in order to exempt 911 records from the scope of discovery authorized by CPLR article 31. Specifically, the sponsoring memorandum for what would become County Law article 6 referenced only the budgetary implications of enhanced 911 services for local government … , and a later-introduced bill sought to repeal section 308 (4) on the ground that it unjustifiably shielded 911 records from requests under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) … . Tellingly, the sponsor … did not identify any need to repeal section 308 (4) in order to make 911 records discoverable under article 31, and for good reason — section 308 (4) had never exempted 911 records from such disclosure in the first place. Abate v County of Erie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05351, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAD BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion seeking discovery to determine damages after defendants’ answer had been struck should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendants had breached “noncompete” provisions of an employment agreement. Defendant (Morrow) did not show up for a deposition and defendants did not provide discovery. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer and enter judgment for plaintiff, but denied plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment discovery:

We agree with plaintiff that it is entitled to discovery in order to establish its damages … . A “defendant’s obligation to afford [a] plaintiff the opportunity to pursue discovery [is not] terminated when the answer [is] stricken,” inasmuch as a plaintiff should not be “handicapped in the proof of its damages by [a] defendant’s prior defiance of orders, notices, or subpoenas calling for his production of records or the taking of a deposition” … . Thus, a “plaintiff, if it chooses to do so, may press its right to discovery in advance of the inquest, whether for direct use as evidence in proving its damages or for the procurement of information that may lead to such evidence” … . Here, plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Morrow’s compliance with the discovery demands insofar as those demands are “material and necessary” to establish plaintiff’s damages (CPLR 3101 [a]). We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from and grant that part of the motion seeking an order to compel discovery from Morrow with respect to damages only. ICM Controls Corp. v Morrow, 2017 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grant of a use variance by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) should have been annulled. The parties seeking the variance (JCC and Lynn) did not present any proof that a reasonable return was not possible with a conforming use:

​

“No . . . use variance shall be granted without a showing by the applicant that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship.” In order to prove such unnecessary hardship, the Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to establish, among other things, that, for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return and that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence… . In other words, the applicant must demonstrate “by dollars and cents proof” that he or she cannot realize a reasonable return by any conforming use… . As part of that demonstration, the applicant must necessarily establish what a reasonable return for the property is … . An applicant’s failure to establish that he or she cannot realize a reasonable return by any conforming use requires denial of the use variance by the ZBA … .

Here, JCC and Lynn failed to present any evidence to the ZBA to satisfy the first requirement of unnecessary hardship, i.e., that they could not realize a reasonable return on the property by any conforming use. In the absence of such evidence in dollars and cents form, there is no rational basis for the ZBA’s finding that the premises would not yield a reasonable return in the absence of the requested use variance and, for that reason, we conclude that the ZBA’s determination must be annulled … . Leone v City of Jamestown Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 04980, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/USE VARIANCE (ZONING, NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE.

The Fourth Department determined solar and wind easements granted subsequent to the mortgages are subject to foreclosure:

​

… [D]efendant’s easements constitute interests in the realty that are subject to foreclosure by plaintiff. A mortgage creates a lien upon the property to the extent of the mortgagor’s own interest or title at the time of the giving of the mortgage. Thus, “[t]he effect of the foreclosure [judgment and sale] . . . is to vest in the purchaser the entire interest and estate of mortgagor and mortgagee as it existed at the date of the mortgage, and unaffected by the subsequent [e]ncumbrances and conveyances of the mortgagor” … . Given that defendant’s easements were not granted and recorded until June 2015, after the subject mortgages were given and recorded in August 2012 and April 2014, respectively, the mortgagors’ interests at the time of the giving of the mortgages included the use or control of the airspace above their properties. Thus, the mortgages are prior in time and right to defendant’s easements … . Bank of Akron v Spring Cr. Athletic Club, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05008, 4th Dept 6-16-17

​

REAL PROPERTY (FORECLOSURE, SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE)/FORECLOSURE (SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS , WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE)/EASEMENTS (FORECLOSURE, SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS , WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE)/SOLAR EASEMENTS (FORECLOSURE, SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS , WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE)/WIND EASEMENTS (FORECLOSURE, SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS , WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in this Labor Law 240 (1) action, based on plaintiff’s fall from a ladder, was premature. The ruling on the motion was based solely on the deposition of the plaintiff:

​

Stephen J. Jones (plaintiff), an employee and owner of third-party defendant Stephen J. Jones Contracting, Inc., fell from a ladder while working on a single-family home. Plaintiff and his wife thereafter commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action against, inter alia, defendant-third-party plaintiff Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc. (defendant), the general contractor on the project. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). We agree with defendant that, in view of the limited discovery that has been conducted, Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion … . Notably, discovery has been limited to plaintiff’s own account of the accident during his examination before trial, and defendant has not had an opportunity to explore potential defenses … . Jones v Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05017, 4th Dept 6-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON MOTHER’S PARAMOUR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a downward modification of child support should not have been dismissed based on the refusal of mother’s paramour to provide financial disclosure:

​

… [T]he Support Magistrate erred in dismissing the mother’s cross petition for a downward modification of child support. The sole justification for that dismissal was the mother’s failure to provide financial disclosure from her paramour, a nonparty, who had filed an affidavit stating that he refused to provide financial disclosure to the court. “While certain penalties or sanctions may be appropriate for the individual conduct of [the mother] . . . , it is apparent that the actions of a nonparty weighed heavily in the decision to invoke the ultimate penalty’ “… . Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court erred in dismissing the cross petition based on a nonparty’s refusal to disclose financial information voluntarily … . We therefore modify the order … by granting the mother’s objection in part and reinstating the mother’s cross petition for a downward modification of child support, and we remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing on the cross petition. Matter of Deshotel v Mandile, 2017 NY Slip Op 04972, 4th Dept 6-16-17

​

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON MOTHER’S PARAMOUR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE)/CHILD SUPPORT (FAMILY LAW,  MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON MOTHER’S PARAMOUR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE)

MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court abused its discretion when it refused mother’s stress-related request for a continuation in this termination of parental rights proceeding:

​

We agree with the mother that the court abused its discretion in denying her counsel’s request for a continuance when, due to emotional distress, the mother was unable to appear in the afternoon on the final day of her hearing. The determination whether to grant a request for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Under the circumstances presented here, including that the issue is the termination of parental rights, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the mother’s request for a continuance. We therefore vacate the order and remit the matter to Family Court to allow the mother to present evidence at a reopened fact-finding hearing… . Matter of Destiny G. (Laricia H.), 2017 NY Slip Op 04965, 4th Dept 6-16-17

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ADJOURNMENTS (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR MISCONDUCT, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS OVERWHELMING.

The Fourth Department did not reverse defendant’s conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct, but took the opportunity to admonish the prosecutor responsible for it, noting that several past reversals were based on that same prosecutor’s misconduct. The court determined the fact that the trial judge sustained objections to the misconduct and properly instructed the jury, together with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, allowed the conviction to stand:

​

The People correctly concede that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the sympathy of the jury … . The People also correctly concede that the prosecutor improperly implied that a potential adolescent witness did not testify because he felt “guilt” about defendant’s actions; County Court, however, properly sustained defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s statement and gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed … . Thus, with respect to that instance of misconduct, we conclude that any prejudice was alleviated … . The People also correctly concede that the prosecutor denigrated defense counsel by stating that he intentionally attempted to confuse an adolescent prosecution witness. We further conclude that, in an attempt to discredit the testimony of an adolescent defense witness, the prosecutor misstated the evidence with respect to whether the witness had spoken with defendant regarding the allegations against him. Although the prosecutor properly responded to defense counsel’s remarks during summation attacking the credibility of the victim … , she also improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim’s testimony … . Furthermore, the prosecutor improperly acted as an unsworn expert by describing defendant’s behavior towards the victim as “classic grooming behavior,” and as an unsworn witness with respect to reasons why the victim delayed in reporting what had occurred … . People v Flowers, 2017 NY Slip Op 04990, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR MISCONDUCT, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS OVERWHELMING)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR MISCONDUCT, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS OVERWHELMING)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR MISCONDUCT, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS OVERWHELMING)

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was not accorded the opportunity to contest the constitutionality of a prior conviction. Therefore the sentence as a second felony offender was vacated even though the error was not preserved for review (interest of justice). Defendant was not provided with a statement of conviction. The fact that the prior conviction was an element of the charged offense in a special information did not obviate the need for a statement of conviction:

​

…[D]defendant contends that the People failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.15 in seeking to have him sentenced as a second violent felony offender inasmuch as they did not file a predicate felony offender statement as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Although that contention is not preserved for our review… , we nonetheless exercise our discretion to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Contrary to the assertion of the prosecutor at sentencing, “the need for a predicate felony offender statement was not obviated by defendant’s pretrial admission to a special information setting forth his prior felony conviction as an element of a count charging criminal possession of a weapon. The special information did not permit defendant to raise constitutional challenges to his prior conviction, as he had the right to do before being sentenced as a second felony offender” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement pursuant to CPL 400.15 and resentencing. People v Edwards, 2017 NY Slip Op 04983, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/STATEMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SENTENCING, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)

DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant, who had been retained after he had been indicted for assault and entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, should not have been released without a hearing:

​

Although originally determined to suffer from a “dangerous mental disorder,” defendant progressed in treatment to the point where he was transferred to a nonsecure psychiatric facility. Petitioner nevertheless contends that defendant remains “[m]entally ill” and in need of “care and treatment as a patient, in the in-patient services of a psychiatric center under the jurisdiction of the state office of mental health” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). As a result, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a “[s]ubsequent retention order” (CPL 330.20 [1] [i]). In support of the application, petitioner submitted, inter alia, an appropriate affidavit from a psychiatric examiner in accordance with CPL 330.20 (20). Defendant demanded a hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20 (9), but he did not submit any affidavits in opposition to the application. * * *

​

Before issuing a release order, the court must conduct a hearing to “determine the defendant’s present mental condition” (CPL 330.20 [12]). Here, the undisputed submissions before the court in support of petitioner’s application for a subsequent retention order demonstrated that defendant remained “mentally ill” as defined in CPL 330.20 (1) (d) and in need of in-patient treatment. Nonetheless, without taking any testimony or receiving any evidence, the court issued a release order. That, itself, was error. Moreover, before issuing a release order, the court must “find[] that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill” (CPL 330.20 [12]; … ). Here, we agree with petitioner that the court further erred in failing to make any finding on that issue. Guttmacher v S.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 04968, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)

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