You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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)

LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s late request to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror should not have been denied:

Here, defense counsel momentarily lost count of the number of jurors who had been selected. As a result, defense counsel declined to exercise a peremptory challenge to prospective juror 21. When informed that prospective juror 21 was the 12th juror seated, defense counsel immediately asked the court to allow defendant to exercise his last peremptory challenge to that juror. The jury had not yet been sworn, the panel from which the alternates would be selected had not yet been called, and prospective juror 21 had not yet been informed that he had been selected. Furthermore, the People expressly declined to object to the request. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request. Indeed, ” we can detect no discernable interference or undue delay caused by [defense counsel’s] momentary oversight . . . that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [the] challenge’ ” … . Such an error cannot be deemed harmless … . People v Scerbo, 2017 NY Slip Op 01073, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, (LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the exception to the criminal possession of a weapon statute for possession in a person’s “place of business” (reducing the offense to a misdemeanor). Here defendant brought a firearm to work at McDonald’s and shot himself in the leg. The court reasoned the “place of business” exception did not apply because McDonald’s prohibited its employees from carrying firearms:

Although the “place of business” exception is not statutorily defined, it has been “construed narrowly by the courts in an effort to balance the State’s strong policy to severely restrict possession of any firearm’ . . . with its policy to treat with leniency persons attempting to protect certain areas in which they have a possessory interest and to which members of the public have limited access” … . Inasmuch as the evidence at trial established that defendant was prohibited from bringing a gun to work, we conclude that to permit defendant to be subjected only to a misdemeanor “would certainly controvert the meaning and intent of the statute” … . People v Wallace, 2017 NY Slip Op 01071, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)/WEAPONS, CRIMINAL POSSESSION (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to testify before the grand jury, even though his request was received by the district attorney after deadlines had passed and after the grand jury had voted to indictment (but before filing of the indictment):

As the Court of Appeals has noted, a defendant has a right “under CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to provide notice and, therefore, the concomitant right to give testimony even perhaps after an indictment has been voted but before it is filed” … . Where, as here, defendant’s request to testify is received after the grand jury has voted, but before the filing of the indictment, defendant is entitled to a reopening of the proceeding to enable the grand jury to hear defendant’s testimony and to revote the case, if the grand jury be so advised … . People v White, 2017 NY Slip Op 01070, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT)/GRAND JURY (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT)

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