You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s acquittal of menacing in his first trial precluded evidence defendant displayed a firearm during a confrontation in the second trial:

At his second trial, the People were permitted to introduce in their case-in-chief, over defendant’s objection, the testimony of an eyewitness that, during a confrontation in a park that occurred prior to the shooting, defendant had pulled out a gun and waved it at the victim, and had cocked the gun and pointed it at the eyewitness. We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances here, the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting evidence at defendant’s second trial concerning the alleged display of a gun during the earlier confrontation at the park … .

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” … . “[W]here the People have had a full and fair opportunity to contest issues, but have failed, it would be inequitable and harassive to again permit the prosecution to establish these same matters, as if the first trial had never taken place” … . Only those facts that were “necessarily decided” by a prior acquittal will have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent prosecution … . Although it may “normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict,” we are charged with giving “a practical, rational reading to the record of the first trial” to determine “whether a rational jury could have grounded its decision on an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration” … .

Here, the two menacing counts alleged that defendant intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death by displaying what appeared to be a firearm, on the basis of his alleged actions at the park shortly before the murder. The eyewitness’s testimony at the first trial was the only evidence supporting the menacing counts. People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 03941, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Evidence supporting charges of which defendant was acquitted in the first trial cannot be presented in the second trial.

 

, ,

A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this traffic accident case, determined a county recycling truck was not engaged in the type of road work which is exempted from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The related affirmative defense should have been dismissed:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the rules of the road do not apply to “persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” … . “[T]he law was intended to exempt from the rules of the road all teams and vehicles that ‘build highways, repair or maintain them, paint the pavement markings, remove the snow, sand the pavement and do similar work’ . . . Thus, the exemption turns on the nature of the work being performed (construction, repair, maintenance or similar work)—not on the nature of the vehicle performing the work” … .

Inasmuch as municipal refuse collection does not involve building, repairing, or maintaining highways, painting pavement markings, removing snow, sanding the pavement, or doing other similar work (see id.) and is “a task which one would anticipate could be accomplished while obeying the rules of the road”…, we conclude that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 does not apply to the facts presented here … . In reaching that conclusion, we note that the 2016 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 117-a (L 2016, ch 293, § 1)—which broadened the definition of “hazard vehicle” to include sani-vans and waste collection vehicles—did not broaden the scope of work that would constitute “engag[ing] in work on a highway” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) further provides that section 1202 (a)—which regulates stopping, standing, and parking—does not apply to “hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” … . That provision, however, does not shield defendants from the allegations of negligence raised by plaintiff, i.e., violations of the right-of-way provisions of Article 26 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including, inter alia, sections 1140, 1142 (a), and 1146 (b). Rouse v City of Syracuse Dept. of Pub. Works, 2024 NY Slip Op 03938, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: A county recycling truck is not engaged in road work and therefore is not exempt from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

 

,

THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was not for the “sale of goods” and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

Plaintiff and defendant signed a one-page “independent contractor and consultant” contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to sell certain minimum amounts of concrete on behalf of defendant (minimum) in return for monthly payments. During the term of the contract, defendant ceased making its monthly payments to plaintiff and terminated the contract, claiming that plaintiff had sold less than 10% of the minimum and failed to provide defendant with an adequate assurance that it could sell the remaining quantity by the end of the contract term. * * *

The dispositive issue before this Court is whether defendant was justified in demanding “adequate assurance of due performance” from plaintiff pursuant to UCC 2-609 (1). If article 2 of the UCC applies and if “adequate assurance is not forthcoming, repudiation is deemed confirmed, and the nonbreaching party is allowed to take reasonable actions as though a repudiation had occurred” … . Article 2 of the UCC applies only to agreements that are “predominantly . . . for the sale of goods, as opposed to the furnishing of services” … . “In determining whether a contract is for the sale of property or services the main objective sought to be accomplished by the contracting parties must be looked for” … .

Here, plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion of establishing that the contract was not predominately for the sale of goods. Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff agreed to provide services to defendant, i.e., to sell the concrete. The contract did not require plaintiff to purchase any products from defendant. Plaintiff therefore demonstrated that the UCC did not apply here, that defendant did not have the right to demand adequate assurance of performance … . Dreamco Dev. Corp. v Cranesville Block Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03937, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The first question to ask in a breach of contract action is whether the contract is for the “sale of goods.” If not, the UCC does not apply.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED ON AN OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION FOR A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the statute which required designating defendant a sexually violent offender based upon an out-of-state conviction for a nonviolent offense was unconstitutional as applied to her:

In this proceeding under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant appeals from an order insofar as it designated her a sexually violent offender. Defendant was previously convicted in North Carolina upon her guilty plea of sexual activity by a substitute parent under the theory of aiding and abetting, a felony offense (former NC Gen Stat § 14-27.7 [a]). The conviction required her to register as a sex offender in that state. After defendant moved to New York, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) determined that she was required to register as a sex offender in New York pursuant to Correction Law … .

… [T]he foreign registration clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) does not withstand constitutional scrutiny as applied to her. Initially, we agree with the People that, although a sexually violent offender designation affects a “liberty interest . . . [that] is substantial” … because it “imposes a stigma that broadly impacts a defendant’s life and ability to participate in society” … , “[t]he right not to have a misleading label attached to one’s serious crime is not fundamental in [the constitutional] sense” … . As a result, defendant’s “constitutional claims [are] subject to [*2]deferential rational basis review” … . That standard of review “is not a demanding” test, but rather “is the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny” … .

Here, defendant established that the People never disputed the nonviolent nature of the sex offense of which defendant was convicted in North Carolina and neither the Board nor the People requested that points be assessed under risk factor 1 for use of violence. Moreover, in support of their position that defendant be designated as a sexually violent offender, the People never argued that the sex offense was the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York (see Correction Law § 168-a [3] [b]). In short, the sole reason put forward by the People for seeking the “sexually violent” designation was the operation of the challenged statute. People v Cromwell, 2024 NY Slip Op 03934, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The Correction Law provision requiring a defendant to register as a sexually violent offender for an out-of-state conviction for a nonviolent offense is unconstitutional as applied.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was erroneously deprived of his right to be present for the Sandoval hearing:

Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant’s conviction is required (… see … CPL 260.20), unless “defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous” … . Here, it cannot be said that defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous because the court’s ruling was a compromise and thus, it was not “wholly favorable to defendant” … . People v Anderson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04042, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Defendant was erroneously denied his right to be present at the Sandoval hearing, new trial ordered.

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE RESPONDENT ANY TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE CHILD SUPPORT HEARING AND INDICATED SHE HAD PREDETERMINED THE OUTCOME; ORDER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have given respondent mother time to prepare for the child-support hearing. In addition, the Fourth Department noted the judge had improperly “predetermined” the case:

Family Court erred when it determined that his alleged violation of the child support order was willful and sentenced him to incarceration because the court did not afford respondent the right to a fair hearing … . Although “[n]o specific form of a hearing is required, . . . at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … , and the court must provide “counsel reasonable opportunity to appear and present respondent’s evidence and arguments” … . Here, the court denied respondent’s assigned counsel an adjournment to allow her time to prepare for the hearing, for which she had no prior notice, and further prohibited her from conferring with respondent before the court attempted to swear in respondent to testify, and the court in so doing denied respondent his right to counsel and, thus, denied him a fair hearing, prior to sentencing him to a period of incarceration … .

Further, the record demonstrates that the court “had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing” … and “took on the function and appearance of an advocate” … . Specifically, the court, inter alia, sua sponte transformed what was scheduled as an appearance for a “[r]eport” into a hearing, over the objection of respondent’s assigned counsel; exhorted that, “[i]f [respondent] wants to be cheeky with me, we’ll be cheeky”; advised the parties in advance that the hearing was only “going to take ten minutes”; sought to call respondent as a witness for the court’s own line of questioning regarding his employment and inquired of respondent’s counsel whether respondent would “like to answer my questions now or would he like to go to jail today”; and asked respondent if he had “clean underwear on,” thereby implying that he would be going directly to jail after the hearing. Matter of Onondaga County v Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 04040, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the Family Court judge was reversed because she did not give respondent mother time to prepare for the child support hearing and indicated to respondent she had predetermined the outcome of the hearing.​

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE EXISTENCE OF A FORENSIC REPORT AND DISCIPLINARY RECORDS; TURNING THEM OVER UPON DISCOVERING THEM AND SUMBITTING A SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) DID NOT CURE THE OMISSION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the People did not meet their burden of demonstrating compliance with their discovery obligations before filing the Certificate of Compliance (COC):

… [W]e conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the July 2022 COC … . The People failed to put forward any evidence of their efforts “to ascertain the existence” of either the forensic report or the disciplinary records prior to filing the July 2022 COC (…CPL 245.50 [1]). Rather, the People’s submissions established that, after they became aware of the materials’ existence, they promptly provided them to defense counsel—an assertion that is undisputed. As the Court of Appeals stated in Bay, “post-filing disclosure and a supplemental COC cannot compensate for a failure to exercise diligence before the initial COC is filed” … . We note in particular that the forensic report was completed more than six months before, upon the case being assigned to a new prosecutor, it was discovered and provided …  . People v Baker, 2024 NY Slip Op 04006, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The People must demonstrate due diligence in ascertaining the existence of discovery material. It is not enough to quickly turn them over upon becoming aware of their existence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT FARM’S EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING FARM EQUIPMENT AT NIGHT WITHOUT LIGHTS WHEN PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER A NEGLIGENCE-PER-SE THEORY AND UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff collided with a manure spreader with no lights which was being towed by a tractor at night (a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law). In addition, the employer of the driver was deemed liable under respondeat superior:

“[A] defendant’s unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … and here, plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion by submitting evidence that the manure spreader was being operated on a public roadway, more than one-half hour after sunset, without “at least two lighted lamps on the rear, one on each side” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (3), and without “signaling devices and reflectors” in violation of section 376 (a), which constitutes negligence per se … . …

“The general rule is that an employee acts within the scope of his [or her] employment when [the employee] is acting in furtherance of the duties owed to the employer and where the employer is or could be exercising some degree of control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities” … . Here, plaintiff established that Sanchez-Rodriguez [the tractor driver] was “acting within the scope of his employment” at the time of the accident … . Durkee v Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2024 NY Slip Op 04002, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Driving farm equipment on a public road at night without lights constitutes negligence per se.

 

,

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING HER GOLF CART AND A MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE COUNTY GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the assumption of the risk doctrine applied to the operation of a golf cart in the parking lot of a golf course. Defendant county, the owner of the golf course, was therefore not liable for an accident involving a motor vehicle in the parking lot:

… [T]he County defendants met their burden of establishing that the risk of being injured while driving a golf cart is “inherent in the sport” of golf and that plaintiff was aware of the risk and assumed it … , and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect thereto … . At the time of the accident, plaintiff was an experienced golfer who played the golf course regularly throughout the season … . Moreover, the County defendants demonstrated that plaintiff had routinely driven a golf cart into the parking lot to retrieve her clubs from her vehicle, and that she was aware of the fact that other people would be operating motor vehicles in the parking lot. The County defendants therefore established as a matter of law that being injured while driving a golf cart in the parking lot of the golf course before a round of golf is “within the known, apparent and foreseeable dangers of the sport” of golf … . Galante v Karlis, 2024 NY Slip Op 04001, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here, over a two-justice dissent, plaintiff was deemed to have assumed the risk of a golf-cart/motor vehicle accident in the golf course parking lot.

 

, , , ,

WHETHER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) REVIVES OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES ARE LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COURT, NOT THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, held the court, not the Workers’ Compensation Board, must determine whether damages in this Child Victims Act (CVA) sexual-abuse action against the alleged perpetrator’s employer are limited to Workers’ Compensation benefits and whether claims for time-barred Workers’ Compensation benefits are revived by the Child Victims Act (CVA):​

” ‘As a general rule, when an employee is injured in the course of . . . employment, [the employee’s] sole remedy against [their] employer lies in [their] entitlement to a recovery under the Workers’ Compensation Law’ ” … . “[T]he issue whether a plaintiff was acting as an employee of a defendant at the time of the injury is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board” … .

“[C]ourts defer to [an] administrative agency where the issue involves knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or entails an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom” … . However, “[w]here . . . the question is one of pure statutory interpretation, [courts] need not accord any deference to [an administrative body’s] determination and can undertake its function of statutory construction” … . As relevant here, although a factual determination with respect to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law should be referred to the Board, which has primary jurisdiction over that issue, questions of law remain within the domain of the court … . Here, whether the CVA revives otherwise time-barred claims for workers’ compensation benefits, based on allegations of sexual abuse by a coworker, and whether plaintiffs are limited to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law even if their claims are revived, are questions of law to be decided by the court, not the Board. Thus, we agree with the plaintiffs that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion, staying the actions pending review by the Board, and holding plaintiffs’ cross-motions to amend their complaints in abeyance pending the Board’s decision. Bates v Gannett Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03999, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: This decision deals with the questions of law raised by applying the Workers’ Compensation Law to sexual abuse claims revived by the Child Victims Act (CVA).​

 

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