You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

SERIOUS-CRIME DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the “serious crime” defamation per se cause of action should have been dismissed. The defamation action stemmed from a letter written to a federal judge by the defendant, in connection with plaintiff-corporation’s pleading guilty to a violation of the Clean Water Act:

Supreme Court erred in denying that part of her pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as the complaint alleged that defendant committed defamation per se by “charging plaintiff[s] with a serious crime” … . We conclude that certain statements in the letter alleging criminal conduct on the part of plaintiffs do not constitute defamation per se because “reference to extrinsic facts is necessary to give them a defamatory import” … , and that other statements, e.g., accusing plaintiffs of terrorism, do not constitute defamation per se because they are “likely to be perceived as rhetorical hyperbole [or] a vigorous epithet’ ” … . Crane-Hogan Structural Sys., Inc. v Belding, 2016 NY Slip Op 06376, 4th Dept 9-30-16

DEFAMATION (SERIOUS-CRIME DEFAMATION PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that allowing the alleged victim’s testimony from the first trial to be read into evidence in the second trial violated the defendant’s right to confrontation. After the first trial, the victim recanted and told defense counsel and the prosecutor someone else committed the offense. At defendant’s second trial, the victim refused to testify, exercising her 5th amendment right to remain silent. Because the victim could not be asked about her recantation, and therefore no foundation for the recantation evidence could be laid, the victim’s testimony from the first trial was deemed admissible. However, under the facts, the victim’s assertion of her 5th amendment rights required the trial judge to explore whether her testimony in the first trial should be struck because her testimony was central to the prosecution’s case. In addition, the Fourth Department determined the trial judge acted vindictively when a greater sentence was imposed after the second trial:

… [The defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the victim exercised her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer defense counsel’s questions regarding the recantation of her testimony because the court failed in its duty “[to] explore whether [she] ha[d] essentially refused to testify on questions of matters so closely related to the commission of the crime[s] that [some or all of her] testimony . . . [from the first trial] should be stricken” … . We note, too, that the victim’s testimony is central to the People’s case … and, given that we have previously determined that the evidence against defendant is “less than overwhelming” … , we cannot conclude that the court’s error is harmless … .

We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial on counts one, two and four of the indictment. In the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our power to review as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice defendant’s contention that the court failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness when it imposed a greater sentence than was imposed following the first trial … . The People correctly concede that the court failed to identify ” conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding’ ” to justify an increased sentence … , and thus we conclude that the court erred in increasing the sentence after the retrial … . People v Hicks, 2016 NY Slip Op 06334, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/RECANTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/SENTENCING (TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)

,

EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

The Fourth Department determined items seized from defendant’s person at the time he was detained should have been suppressed. However, a subsequent show-up identification, statements, and items found where defendant was initially seized were not fruit of the poisonous tree:

Defendant contends that he was unlawfully arrested prior to the showup identification procedure and that all of the physical evidence, as well as the identification testimony and his statements, must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. We agree with defendant that the items seized from his person should have been suppressed because the police did not have probable cause at that time to arrest him and conduct a search incident to an arrest. We conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant and detain him for the purpose of the showup identification … . But although the police were permitted at that time to conduct a pat frisk of defendant … , they were not permitted to search him.

We reject defendant’s contention, however, insofar as he asserts that the remaining evidence must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. It is well settled that “only evidence which is the fruit of the poisonous tree’ should be excluded” … . In other words, “only evidence which has been come at by exploitation of that illegality should be suppressed” … . Here, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the showup identification of him, his statements to the police, and the items seized in the courtyard, were causally related to his unlawful arrest prior to the showup identification procedure … , i.e., that such evidence was ” obtained by exploitation’ ” of the illegal arrest … . People v Ashford, 2016 NY Slip Op 06365, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)

,

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the selection of a juror by the defendant, a selection with which defense counsel apparently disagreed, deprived defendant of his right to counsel:

“It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal” … . “The selection of particular jurors falls within the category of tactical decisions entrusted to counsel, and defendants do not retain a personal veto power over counsel’s exercise of professional judgments” … .

Here, during the part of the jury selection process when the attorneys were exercising peremptory challenges, defense counsel stated “[f]or the record, my client is insisting over my objection to keep juror number 21. So, jurors 20 and 21 will be on the jury.” We agree with defendant that, contrary to the People’s contention, defense counsel “never acceded’ or acquies[ed]’ to defendant’s decision” … . … Consequently, the court denied defendant the “expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him,” and “we cannot say that the error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” … . People v Mckenzie, 2016 NY Slip Op 06288, 4th Dept 9-30-16

CRIMINAL LAW (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)

JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD A STRATEGIC REASON FOR NOT OBJECTING, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL.

In a case reversed by the Court of Appeals and remitted, the Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, refused to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to address an unpreserved “jury note” error. The jury sent out two notes which the trial judge read into the record. But before the judge responded to the notes, the jury rendered a verdict. Defense counsel did not object to the failure to address the notes. The Fourth Department had reversed, finding the failure to respond to the notes a mode of proceedings error (not requiring preservation). The Court of Appeals reversed the Fourth Department, finding the error needed to be preserved:

… [T]he only remaining issue to be decided is whether we should exercise our power to review defendant’s unpreserved contention regarding the unanswered jury notes as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We decline to do so. As the Court of Appeals noted, defense counsel “may have made a strategic choice not to challenge the trial court’s procedure,” and “may have decided that the jurors were more likely to acquit defendant if they were not given the chance to deliberate further” … . Such a strategic decision, if made, would have been entirely reasonable considering that the jury had asked for, among other things, a readback of testimony from the key prosecution witness.

Because defense counsel may have had a legitimate, strategic reason for not objecting to the court’s procedure, we respectfully disagree with the dissent that defendant was “seriously prejudiced” by the court’s taking of the verdict. People v Mack, 2016 NY Slip Op 05825, 4th Dept 8-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY MAY HAVE HAD STRATEGIC REASON FOR NOT OBJECTING, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)

, ,

NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiffs’ negligent hiring/retention cause of action against the city and city police department was properly dismissed. The action stemmed from incidents of sexual abuse by a police officer (O’Shei). It was alleged the officer should not have been retained after suffering brain injury:

Plaintiffs contend that the City defendants failed to do an appropriate evaluation of O’Shei’s neuropsychological status after the second motor vehicle accident. Recovery on a negligent retention theory “requires a showing that the employer was on notice of the relevant tortious propensit[y] of the wrongdoing employee” … , i.e., “that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Thus, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the City defendants were under no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for supervising or retaining O’Shei inasmuch as they did not know of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the employee … .

* * * …[T]his is a retention case, and it is well settled that the common-law duty for retention does not require as high a degree of care as does hiring … . Pater v City of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 05462, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENT RETENTION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the children in the neglect proceeding did not receive effective assistance of counsel from the attorney for the child (AFC). The AFC took positions contrary to the wishes of two of the children (Brian and Alyssa):

The Rules of the Chief Judge provide that an AFC “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]), even if the AFC “believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the AFC is convinced that the “child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment”; or (2) where the AFC is convinced that “following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . Here, there is no dispute that the trial AFC took a position contrary to the position of two of the subject children … . * * *

Inasmuch as the trial AFC failed to advocate Brian and Alyssa’s position at the fact-finding hearing, he was required to determine that one of the two exceptions to the Rules of the Chief Judge applied, as well as “[to] inform the court of the child[ren]’s articulated wishes” … . Here, the trial AFC did not fulfill either obligation … . Indeed, the record establishes that neither of the two exceptions applied. Matter of Brian S. (Scott S.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05464, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/NEGLECT (CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FAMMILY LAW, CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)

,

RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE.

The Fourth Department reduced defendant sex offender’s risk level from three to two, finding that the assessment of 25 points for sexual contact with the victim overassessed the defendant’s risk to public safety. Defendant and the victim were close in age and the victim’s lack of consent was solely due to her age:

In light of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the relatively slight age difference between defendant and the victim, as well as the undisputed evidence that the victim’s lack of consent was premised only on her inability to consent by virtue of her age, we conclude in the exercise of our own discretion that the assessment of 25 points under the second risk factor, for sexual contact with the victim, results in an overassessment of defendant’s risk to public safety … . People v George, 2016 NY Slip Op 05482, 4th Dept 7-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)/SORA (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)

DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive, two-justice dissent, determined defendant, when he was in custody, consented to the search of the premises and a duffel bag in a closet:

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that, although defendant was in custody at the time he gave consent, he cooperated with the police and assisted them in gaining entry by indicating which of his keys opened the front door … . Once inside the home, the police observed marihuana in plain view and immediately read defendant his Miranda rights. After defendant waived those rights, he voluntarily consented, both verbally and in writing, to a search of the premises.

We reject defendant’s further contention that any voluntary consent he may have given did not encompass a search of a duffel bag inside of his closet. “The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of objective reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” … . Where an officer informs a suspect of the specific items the officer is searching for, ” [t]he scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object’ ” … . Here, defendant responded affirmatively when the officer asked him whether he “could have permission to search both the room and the house for drugs or any other weapons or illegal contraband in the house.” Additionally, defendant signed a written consent that included the “premises” and his “personal property.” People v Freeman, 2016 NY Slip Op 05472, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET)/SEARCH (DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET)/CONSENT SEARCH (DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET)/SUPPRESSION (DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET)

GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE A KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK BURGLARY STATUTE; THE GEORGIA STATUTE CANNOT, THEREFORE, SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s Georgia burglary conviction could not serve as a predicate felony in New York. The corresponding New York burglary statute required that a defendant knowingly enter or remain in a building with the intent to commit a crime. The knowledge element was not part of the Georgia statute:

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in 1999, at which time the Georgia burglary statute provided that “[a] person commits the offense of burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another” (Ga Code Ann former § 16-7-1 [a]). The equivalent New York burglary statute provides that “[a] person is guilty of burglary . . . when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when . . . [t]he building is a dwelling” (Penal Law § 140.25 [2] [emphasis added]). Thus, on its face, the Georgia statute is lacking an essential element—knowledge that the entry or decision to remain is unlawful. Because New York law requires proof of an element that Georgia law does not, defendant’s Georgia conviction cannot serve as a predicate … . People v Helms, 2016 NY Slip Op 05463, 4th Dept 7-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE A KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK BURGLARY STATUTE; THE GEORGIA STATUTE CANNOT, THEREFORE, SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY)/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELONY, GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE A KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK BURGLARY STATUTE; THE GEORGIA STATUTE CANNOT, THEREFORE, SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE A KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK BURGLARY STATUTE; THE GEORGIA STATUTE CANNOT, THEREFORE, SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY)

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