You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted claimants leave to file a late notice of claim against the water authority which allegedly created a depression in the roadway (the cause of the injury). Claimants had filed a timely notice of claim against the city and only later learned the water authority was the general contractor:

An “[e]rror concerning the identity of the governmental entity to be served” can constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay “provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error” … . …

Here, claimants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay inasmuch as they served a timely notice of claim upon the City, and then promptly applied for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respondents after discovering respondents’ alleged involvement in causing claimant’s injuries … . Furthermore, although respondents lacked actual knowledge of claimant’s injuries, respondents have ” made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [them] substantial prejudice’ ” … . Indeed, we note that the Water Board was the general contractor for the construction project that allegedly created the defect in the roadway, and thus respondents’ ability to investigate the facts underlying the claim is furthered by their possession of documents and other information related to the construction project. King v Niagara Falls Water Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 00855, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY DEVICES WERE REQUIRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was standing on a closed A-frame ladder when he felt an electric shock and fell:

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was using a 10-foot A-frame ladder to install flashing around a duct. The ladder was folded shut and leaning against the wall while plaintiff was using it. Just before the accident, he was using both hands to take a measurement above his head, while standing on “the fourth or fifth rung” of the ladder, which was “at least four feet off the floor.” As he extended his tape measure, he felt a strong electric shock to his left arm and he fell off the ladder.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion. “[T]here are questions of fact . . . whether . . . the ladder, which was not shown to be defective in any way, failed to provide proper protection, and whether . . . plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices” … . Jones v Nazareth Coll. of Rochester, 2017 NY Slip Op 00825, 4th Dept 2-3-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY DEVICES WERE REQUIRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY DEVICES WERE REQUIRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)

18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined an 18% reduction in father’s income was sufficient to warrant a recalculation of his child support:

… [T]he father cites his significantly reduced income from 2012 to 2013 as the requisite change in circumstances. We agree with the father that such income reduction—approximately 18%—constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a recalculation of his child support obligation … . Matter of Brink v Brink, 2017 NY Slip Op 00879, 4th Dept 2-3-17

FAMILY LAW (18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT)

UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined, pursuant to the criteria recently announced by the Court of Appeals, the grandparents had standing to contest a custody petition by mother. The child, now six years old, had lived with the grandparents since birth and mother, who has a good relationship with the child, had never before sought custody:

Approximately six months after the court issued its order, the Court of Appeals reversed our decision in Suarez and clarified what constitutes extraordinary circumstances when the nonparent seeking custody is a grandparent of the child. In that context, extraordinary circumstances may be demonstrated by an “extended disruption of custody, specifically: (1) a 24-month separation of the parent and child, which is identified as prolonged, (2) the parent’s voluntary relinquishment of care and control of the child during such period, and (3) the residence of the child in the grandparents’ household” (Suarez, 26 NY3d at 448 … ).

Evaluating those three elements in light of the facts of this case, we agree with respondents and the Attorney for the Child that respondents met their burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances, thereby giving them standing to seek custody of the child. It is undisputed that the child has lived in respondents’ home since he was born, when petitioner consented to give respondents primary physical custody of him. Although the child has a good relationship with petitioner and has frequent visitation with her, petitioner has never made, in nearly six years, any serious attempts to regain custody or resume a parental role in the child’s life. Inasmuch as petitioner voluntarily relinquished custody to respondents and has been separated from the child for a prolonged period of well over 24 months, during which time the child has resided in respondents’ home, we conclude that respondents established the requisite extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Orlowski v Zwack, 2017 NY Slip Op 00880, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

FAMILY LAW (UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY)/CUSTODY (UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY)/STANDING (FAMILY, GRANDPARENTS, CUSTODY, UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY)

,

ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH.

The Fourth Department determined the failure to offer any proof the 38-year-old defendant was more than 18 years old precluded conviction of attempted first degree murder (defendant shot at police officers). The convictions were reduced to attempted second degree murder. The Fourth Department further determined the reckless endangerment first degree was not supported by sufficient evidence that the passenger in defendant’s vehicle was exposed to a “grave risk of death” when defendant rammed a police vehicle. The conviction was reduced to recklessd endangerment second degree:

As the People correctly concede, however, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant was more than 18 years old at the time of the crimes. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant was in fact 38 years old at the time of the crimes in September 2011, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during his trial in 2012, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . The evidence is sufficient to establish that defendant intended to kill each of the officers … , and we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his intent … . We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the conviction under counts one and two to attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), and we remit the matter to County Court for sentencing on those counts. * * *

There was evidence that defendant “rammed” the side of the police vehicle with the part of his truck in which his girlfriend was sitting, but neither officer could estimate how fast defendant was going at impact, and the relatively short distance he traveled toward the police vehicle tended to show that he could not have been going very fast. Furthermore, both vehicles remained operable after the collision, and there was no evidence that anyone sustained any injury from it. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that it is legally insufficient to establish that the collision created a grave risk of death to defendant’s girlfriend … . People v VanGorden, 2017 NY Slip Op 00877, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH)

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not come forward with proof demonstrating the legality of a vehicle stop. Defendant and the driver were the only persons in the car. A large amount of cocaine was seized from the back seat area. The driver purportedly consented to the search. However, because, at the suppression hearing, no proof of the legality of the stop was presented, the consent was deemed involuntary and the evidence suppressed:

We conclude that, “[b]ecause the People failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing establishing the legality of the police conduct, [the driver’s] purported consent to the search of his vehicle was involuntary[,] and all evidence seized from the vehicle as a result of that consent should have been suppressed” … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant defendant’s omnibus motion insofar as it sought suppression of the cocaine found in the vehicle, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Kendrick, 2017 NY Slip Op 00870, 4th Dept 2-3-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department determined the denial of a for cause challenge to a juror required reversal:

Here, in response to the prosecutor’s question regarding whether any member of the panel thought that he or she could not be fair and impartial due to the allegations of driving while intoxicated, prospective juror No. 13 indicated that, due to situations in her past, she did not see any reason why anyone would need to drink and drive, and she could not be fair and impartial. Upon follow-up questioning by the court, she assured the court that she could set those feelings aside. Later, however, in response to defense counsel’s questions, prospective juror No. 13 indicated that she had wondered what defendant did wrong when she first walked into the courtroom, and that “obviously” she felt that “he must have done something wrong or he wouldn’t have” been in court. The court asked follow-up questions, but cut off the prospective juror before she could reply to one such question, and the court’s final substantive question failed to establish the prospective juror’s state of mind. Consequently, the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to prospective juror No. 13. People v Betances, 2017 NY Slip Op 00804, 4th Dept 2-3-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined motions for summary judgment in this contract-interpretation case were properly denied. The contract at issue was an operating agreement for plaintiff limited liability company. Both the majority and the dissent found the contract language ambiguous. The majority concluded reference to extrinsic evidence was necessary, precluding summary judgment. The dissent argued plaintiffs had shown their interpretation was the only fair interpretation:

“It is well settled that a contract must be read as a whole to give effect and meaning to every term . . . Indeed, [a] contract should be interpreted in a way [that] reconciles all [of] its provisions, if possible’ ” … . Therefore, “[e]ffect and meaning must be given to every term of the contract . . . , and reasonable effort must be made to harmonize all of its terms” … . It is equally well settled that “[t]he interpretation of an unambiguous contractual provision is a function for the court . . . , and [t]he proper inquiry in determining whether a contract is ambiguous is whether the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation . . . To be entitled to summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of establishing that its construction of the [contract] is the only construction [that] can fairly be placed thereon” … .

Here, neither party established that its interpretation of the Agreement is the only reasonable interpretation thereof … . Consequently, summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture because a “determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence” … . Maven Tech., LLC v Vasile, 2017 NY Slip Op 00840, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED)/AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT TERMS (NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED)

, ,

TRANSFER OF LAND TO A TRUST PURSUANT TO THE ONEIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT CEDE THE STATE’S TAXATION AUTHORITY; MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WILL BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR.

The Fourth Department determined a citizen taxpayer’s declaratory judgment action against the state, claiming that the transfer of land to a trust pursuant to the Oneida Settlement Agreement ceded the state’s taxation authority, was properly rejected. The court noted that when a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action is made, the court will treat it as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor:

Plaintiff alleges that Section VI B (1-5) of the Agreement violates article XVI of the State Constitution, which prohibits the State from surrendering, suspending or contracting away its power of taxation. Section VI B (1-5) provides that the State will not oppose a future application by the Oneida Indian Nation (Nation) to transfer to the United States up to 12,366 acres of land to be held in trust pursuant to 25 USC § 5108 (formerly § 465). The land at issue was formerly part of the 300,000-acre reservation, which was established in the 1788 Treaty of Fort Schuyler (see City of Sherrill, N.Y. v Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 US 197, 203), and which the Nation has reacquired through open-market transactions (see id. at 211). In 2008, the United States Secretary of the Interior accepted the transfer into trust of 13,004 acres of reacquired land owned by the Nation, over defendant’s objection. We conclude that the court properly declared that Section VI B (1-5) does not violate the State constitutional provision prohibiting defendant from surrendering or contracting away its power of taxation. * * *

To the extent that plaintiff contends that Executive Law § 11 and Indian Law § 16 violate article XVI of the State Constitution, we reject that contention. Kaplan v State of New York. 2017 NY Slip Op 00766, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (STATE) (TRANSFER OF LAND TO A TRUST PURSUANT TO THE ONEIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT CEDE THE STATE’S TAXATION AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WILL BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR)/INDIAN LAW (TRANSFER OF LAND TO A TRUST PURSUANT TO THE ONEIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT CEDE THE STATE’S TAXATION AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WILL BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, (TRANSFER OF LAND TO A TRUST PURSUANT TO THE ONEIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT CEDE THE STATE’S TAXATION AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WILL BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (TRANSFER OF LAND TO A TRUST PURSUANT TO THE ONEIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT CEDE THE STATE’S TAXATION AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WILL BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR)

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department determined there was no basis for the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants in this deed/adverse possession action. After two appeals and a trial, the defendants prevailed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court improperly awarded counsel fees and litigation costs to defendants, and we therefore reverse. The general rule in New York is that litigants are required to absorb their own counsel fees and litigation costs unless there is a contractual or statutory basis for imposing them … , and “[t]here is neither a contractual nor a statutory basis for the award of [counsel] fees to [defendants] in this case” … . Furthermore, although a court may award counsel fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, it may do so “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award . . . is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded . . . to be appropriate” (22 NYCRR 130-1.2…). Here, defendants did not seek sanctions for frivolous conduct, and the court did not issue a written decision or make any finding that plaintiff or decedents engaged in such conduct. Furthermore, we conclude that the counterclaim seeking to recover counsel fees failed to state a cause of action inasmuch as defendants did not allege any proper basis upon which such fees would be recoverable. We therefore dismiss the counterclaims … . Perry v Edwards, 2017 NY Slip Op 00862, 4th Dept 2-3-17

ATTORNEYS (FEES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS)/ATTORNEYS FEES (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS)

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