You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF. 

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert had raised a question of fact about whether the actions of defendant truck driver (negligent application of the brakes) contributed to the accident:

… [A] tractor-trailer … driven by Mark C. Shaw … collided with a car driven by defendant Robin F. Lewis … , after Lewis made a sudden left turn in front of the tractor-trailer. After that initial collision, the tractor-trailer jackknifed, collided with plaintiff’s car, and ended up in a ditch on the opposite side of the road, on top of plaintiff’s car.

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that Lewis’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the collision. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of an expert forensic examiner … . Plaintiff’s expert opined within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that Shaw’s conduct was a proximate cause of the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle because he inappropriately and negligently applied the brakes, which caused the tractor-trailer to jackknife after the initial impact with Lewis’s vehicle. The expert’s opinion was not based on speculation, but was supported by voluminous deposition testimony, police reports, and the New York State Commercial Driver’s Manual … . Pacino v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRUCKS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)

TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Although plaintiff’s foot apparently “picked up” the corner of a rug, there was no showing the rug was defective or dangerous:

Although the rug may not have been designed to be placed over another rug or the recessed mat system, the video of the incident, which was submitted in opposition to the motion, shows that decedent tripped over the front edge of the rug. There is no indication that the rug slipped, and there is no record evidence that the rug constituted a defective or dangerous condition at the time of the fall. We conclude that “the mere placement of the [rug] by the front door of the defendant’s premises was not an inherently dangerous condition” … . Slattery v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01078, 4th Dept 2-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)/RUGS (SLIP AND FALL, TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)

NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the identification testimony of a police officer should not have been admitted because pretrial notice of the identification had not been provided to the defendant:

We agree with defendant … that the court erred in permitting the officer to identify defendant as the person in the left rear seat of the vehicle in the absence of a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). We therefore reverse the judgment and grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking preclusion of that testimony on the ground that the People failed to serve a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The prosecutor advised the court and defense counsel after jury selection that the officer would identify defendant as the left rear passenger. Defendant objected and the court conducted a hearing, over defendant’s objection, and determined that the officer’s identification of defendant by means of a single photo approximately two hours after the incident was merely confirmatory and thus that no notice was required pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b).

The exception to the requirement to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 “carries significant consequences” … , and the Court of Appeals has “consistently held that police identifications do not enjoy any exemption from the statutory notice and hearing requirements” … . Unlike the buy-and-bust scenario, where the police participant is focused on the face-to-face contact with defendant with the goal of identifying him or her when he or she is picked up by a back up unit … , here, the officer was standing by the vehicle for approximately three minutes while he was engaged with all of the occupants of the vehicle. Thus, “we cannot conclude that the circumstances of [the officer’s] initial viewing were such that, as a matter of law, the subsequent identification could not have been the product of undue suggestiveness” … . Indeed, “the statute contemplates pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony’ ” … , and “[t]o conclude otherwise directly contravenes the simple procedure that has been mandated by the Legislature and would permit the People to avoid their statutory obligation merely because a police officer’s initial viewing of a suspect and a subsequent identification might be temporally related” … . People v Clay, 2017 NY Slip Op 01074, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTON REVERSED)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTON REVERSED)

FALL FROM TRUCK BED 20 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s fall from a truck bed was not the type of elevation risk covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Joseph T. Grabar (plaintiff) when the trailer on which plaintiff was standing tipped, and he fell. Plaintiff was on the bed of the trailer in order to place fuel in a welder that was located on the trailer, and it is undisputed that the trailer bed was approximately 20 inches from the ground. …

We conclude that the trailer “did not present the kind of elevation-related risk that the statute contemplates” … . Grabar v Nichols, Long & Moore Constr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01068, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM TRUCK BED 20 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1))

,

UNAMBIGUOUS TERM OF INSURANCE CONTRACT CAPPING PAYMENT FOR WATER DAMAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the terms of the insurance policy were not ambiguous and the $25,000 cap for water damage applied:

It is well-settled that insurance contracts are construed “in light of common speech’ and the reasonable expectations of a businessperson” … . “[U]nambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning” … . We conclude that the contract language at issue here is not ambiguous. By its plain terms, the contract limits coverage to $25,000 for damage caused when ground water enters the basement through a gap, hole, or opening in the wall, and the conduit clearly falls within the water damage exclusion and endorsement … . Papa v Associated Indem. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01118, 4th Dept 2-10-17

INSURANCE LAW (UNAMBIGUOUS TERM OF INSURANCE CONTRACT CAPPING PAYMENT FOR WATER DAMAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED)/CONTRACT LAW (iNSURANCE LAW, UNAMBIGUOUS TERM OF INSURANCE CONTRACT CAPPING PAYMENT FOR WATER DAMAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED)

,

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the New York State Department of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) ruling, without a hearing, there was no probable cause to believe petitioner was discriminated or retaliated against because of her disability was not arbitrary or capricious and had a rational basis:

“Where, as here, SDHR renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis’ ” … . We agree with respondent that the court erred in disturbing SDHR’s determination based upon, inter alia, its failure to conduct a hearing. “Courts give deference to SDHR due to its experience and expertise in evaluating allegations of discrimination” … , and “such deference extends to [SDHR’s] decision whether to conduct a hearing” … . SDHR has the discretion to determine the method to be used in investigating a claim, and “a hearing is not required in all cases” … . Inasmuch as “the parties made extensive submissions to [SDHR], petitioner was given an opportunity to present [her] case, and the record shows that the submissions were in fact considered, the determination cannot be arbitrary and capricious merely because no hearing was held’ … . * * *

Here, we conclude that “the conflicting evidence before SDHR did not create a material issue of fact that warranted a formal hearing” … . Rather, we agree with respondent that a rational basis supports SDHR’s determination that, based upon all of the facts and circumstances, there is no factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious person to believe that respondent unlawfully discriminated against petitioner based on her disability ,,, . In addition, SDHR rationally determined that the evidence did not support petitioner’s allegation that respondent subjected her to a hostile work environment … . Finally, we conclude that SDHR’s determination that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent retaliated against petitioner is not arbitrary or capricious, and it has a rational basis in the record … . Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 01060, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYS) (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)

,

GLAZIERS ENROLLED IN AN APPRENTICE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PAID AS APPRENTICES EVEN IF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID IS NOT IN THE SAME TRADE AS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a statute was wrong and reversed. The case concerned whether glaziers enrolled in an apprentice program should be paid as apprentices even if the work for which they are paid is not in the same trade or occupation as the apprenticeship program:

In reviewing Labor Law § 220 as a whole, we conclude that nothing in that statute establishes any basis for a different interpretation of section 220 (3-e). Rather, we note that the very limitation defendants seek to impose on section 220 (3-e), i.e., a limitation to work in the same trade or occupation, was added to other subdivisions of Labor Law § 220 (see § 220 [3] [a], [b]). When “the Legislature uses unlike terms in different parts of a statute it is reasonable to infer that a dissimilar meaning is intended” … . The fact that the Legislature did not add similar restrictive language to section 220 (3-e) further supports our conclusion that no such restriction was intended, and this Court will not “amend [the] statute by inserting words that are not there” … .

Inasmuch as “the language of [the] statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must give effect to its plain meaning” … , and we may not “resort to extrinsic material such as legislative history or memoranda” … . We thus conclude that Labor Law § 220 (3-e), by its terms, permits glazier apprentices who are registered, individually, under a bona fide glazier apprenticeship program to work and be paid as apprentices even if the work they are performing is not work in the same trade or occupation as their apprenticeship program. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2017 NY Slip Op 01112. 4th Dept 2-10-17

,

AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED; PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to the opportunity to present a defense after the motion for a trial order of dismissal was denied:

When the appeal was previously before us, we held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion for a trial order of dismissal “following such further proceedings as may be necessary” … . Upon remittal, the court … denied the motion … . … [T]he court did not afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense, notwithstanding that defendant had not rested and the proof was not closed. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict [the motion for a trial order of dismissal had not been ruled on] when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense. People v White, 2017 NY Slip Op 01058, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MOTION FOR AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)

CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined there was probable cause for the stop in this DWI case. Defendant was observed the deputy driving in the oncoming traffic lane for two tenths of a mile:

We agree with the People that the stop was based on probable cause and thus that County Court erred in granting that part of defendant’s motion seeking suppression. The arresting deputy testified at the Dunaway hearing that he personally observed defendant’s vehicle cross the center line and proceed into the lane for oncoming traffic. The vehicle remained in that lane for approximately two-tenths of a mile, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). Thus, the deputy, having personally observed the violation, had probable cause to stop the vehicle … . Once the deputy effectuated the stop, he noticed that defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he smelled the strong odor of alcohol on her breath. He conducted a series of field sobriety tests, all of which defendant failed. Thus, the deputy had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated ,,, , People v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01059, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED)/VEHICLE STOPS (CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED)

JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED.

The Fourth Department remitted the case to Supreme Court because the reasons for denial of youthful offender status were not put on the record:

Where, as here, “a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony or an enumerated sex offense pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) or (iii), and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record even where [the] defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain . . . If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender’ ” … . People v Dukes, 2017 NY Slip Op 01105, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED)

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