You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

LAWSUIT ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined a lawsuit brought by a charter school network and students (infant plaintiffs), alleging deficient funding for charter-school facilities violated the Education Article and equal protection, should have been dismissed in its entirety. Although the network was deemed to have the capacity to sue under the Education Article, it did not have standing to sue because the article protects students not schools. The infant plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Education Article was deficient because it did not plead a district-wide funding problem. The disparity in facilities funding between charter and public schools was deemed to have a rational basis. The “disparate impact” cause of action failed to allege discriminatory intent.  Brown v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06566, 4th Dept 10-7-16

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LAWSUIT ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY)/CHARTER SCHOOLS (LAWSUIT ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY)

,

CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sexual abuse conviction, which was based solely on defendant’s confession, was against the weight of the evidence:

CPL 60.50 requires corroboration of such a confession: “A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed.” Here, there is no such corroboration. The People assert that defendant’s confession “was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the child victim and her numerous hearsay disclosures solicited by the defense.” The record does not support that assertion, however, inasmuch as the victim never testified that she touched defendant’s penis with her hand, and there is no other evidence—hearsay or otherwise—independent of defendant’s confession to support defendant’s conviction of sexual abuse. Although it is well settled that “additional proof need not corroborate every detail of the confession,’ ” we conclude that defendant’s conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree was “based solely on [defendant’s] uncorroborated [confession]” … . Since there was “no corroborating proof of whatever weight,’ [count two of the indictment] must be dismissed” … . People v Maynard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06573, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/CONFESSIONS (CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct to which defense counsel did not object. The prosecutor grossly exaggerated the nature and importance of DNA evidence found on a weapon. Defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance:

At trial, the People presented testimony of a forensic expert to discuss DNA evidence collected from the gun, but the testimony was not conclusive. The expert testified that she analyzed the DNA mixture and determined that defendant was among 1 in 15 Americans who could not be excluded as a contributor. Nevertheless, on summation, the prosecutor grossly exaggerated the DNA evidence as “overwhelming” proof establishing defendant’s “guilt beyond all doubt” and posited: “If the defendant had not possessed the gun, wouldn’t science have excluded him?” In our view, the prosecutor’s flagrant distortion of the DNA evidence caused defendant such substantial prejudice that he was denied due process of law, particularly in light of the circumstantial nature of the People’s case … . In light of the foregoing, we agree with defendant’s related contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel owing to defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct during summation … . People v Rozier, 2016 NY Slip Op 06577, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)

, ,

STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS.

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the Court of Claims did not have the power to order the state to pay for liability insurance to allow claimant’s expert to test soil and water for contamination by highway deicing agents. Under the Court of Claims Act, the state cannot be required to pay fees for claimant’s witnesses:

In this real property tort action, claimants assert that deicing agents have run off of the Thruway and onto their farm located adjacent to the Thruway, thereby contaminating the soil and water. In order to prove their claim, claimants sought to inspect, test, and sample the Thruway shoulder and median adjacent to their farm. The testing would include, among other things, air, soil, and water testing and would involve “six visits to the site during the winter and early spring.” Claimants located a professor who agreed to perform the testing as their expert in exchange for permission to use the tests in his research and teaching; however, neither claimants nor the professor could afford the liability insurance routinely required by defendant in connection with inspections performed on its property.

Defendant moved for a protective order “requiring [c]laimants to provide satisfactory liability insurance in connection with proposed testing.” The Court of Claims issued an order stating, inter alia, that “[d]efendant shall be required to obtain or pay the costs of the insurance necessary to cover the anticipated testing activities” and that “the amount of insurance necessary shall be as determined by [d]efendant.” * * *

Under Court of Claims Act § 27, “costs, witnesses’ fees and disbursements shall not be taxed . . . by the court to any party.” Frederick v New York State Thruway Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 06585, 4th Dept 10-7-16

COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS, STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS)/REAL PROPERTY (STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS)/HIGHWAYS (STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS)/DEICING AGENTS  (STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS)

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have sanctioned plaintiff for disregarding a court order and submitted a materially false affidavit:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a), a court may award to any party fees and costs resulting from frivolous conduct, i.e., conduct that is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; . . . [or that is] undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or . . . asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Factors to consider in determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous include “the circumstances under which the conduct took place,” and whether “the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (id.).

Here, plaintiff’s conduct was clearly frivolous inasmuch as she submitted an affidavit that disregarded a court order and, in response to a second order, she submitted a second affidavit that contained a material falsehood. When that conduct is viewed along with plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and other orders, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to sanction plaintiff. Place v Chaffee-Sardinia Volunteer Fire Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06588, 4th Dept 10-7-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)/SANCTIONS (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant testified her husband’s neck was cut in a struggle for the knife her husband had used to attack her. The People apparently argued defendant’s wounds were self-inflicted. There was evidence of a wound behind defendant’s left armpit which could not have been self-inflicted. The Fourth Department held that defense counsel’s failure to show the jury the wound, failure to engage an expert concerning the wound, failure to examine defendant’s clothing and failure to show the clothing to the jury could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel because such evidence would demonstrate the wound behind the armpit was not surgical in origin (as was argued at trial). A hearing, therefore, should have been held:

Defendant … submitted an affirmation from her appellate counsel, who examined the shirts and asserted that, contrary to the testimony of the … prosecution witness, the holes in the shirts matched precisely the location of defendant’s alleged stab wound behind her left armpit. At oral argument of the motion, appellate counsel urged the court to examine the garments before ruling on the motion. The court declined to do so and denied defendant’s motion without a hearing.

We conclude that, if, as appellate counsel asserts, there are holes in the shirts defendant was wearing at the time of the altercation matching the wound behind her left armpit, in the absence of some strategic explanation, the failure of defendant’s trial attorney to examine that clothing, coupled with his failure to call a medical expert to discuss the wound and to show the wound to the jury, would have been so ” egregious and prejudicial’ ” as to deprive defendant of a fair trial … . Because defendant’s “submissions [thus] tend[ ] to substantiate all the essential facts’ necessary to support [her] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel” … , we conclude that the court should have held a hearing on the motion … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 06565, 4th Dept 10-7-16

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION,DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)

STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People’s notice to defendant about the time and place the grand jury presentation would take place was deficient. The prosecutor told defense counsel the presentation would take place the next day:

Here, we conclude that, after receiving defendant’s March 1, 2013 request to appear before the grand jury, the People did not provide defendant with notice “of the time and place of the grand jury presentation” … , as is required by CPL 190.50 (5) (b), and we therefore reverse. We note that, on March 25, 2013, the People sent a letter to defense counsel stating that, “during the week of April 8, 2013, the Erie County Grand Jury will hear testimony concerning this matter. In accordance with CPL 190.50, should your client wish to testify, please clearly state so, in writing, no later than April 5, 2013, so that I can make the necessary arrangements to receive his testimony.” Although that letter would have been sufficient to satisfy the initial and separate requirement set forth in CPL 190.50 (5) (a) that the People notify defendant of his right to appear before the grand jury … , the letter did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 190.50 (5) (b) to inform defendant of the time and place of the grand jury presentation, which were triggered by defendant’s March 1, 2013 request to appear before the grand jury. It is of no moment that defendant did not respond to the People’s letter because nothing in CPL 190.50 requires a defendant to resubmit a valid notice pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) when he has already done so. We further note that the prosecutor’s oral statement to defense counsel on April 10, 2013 that “he will be presenting the matter to the Erie County Grand Jury the next day” was insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement inasmuch as it did not provide defendant with the requisite notice of the time and place of the grand jury presentation … . People v Moss, 2016 NY Slip Op 06587, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION)/GRAND JURY (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION)

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the marijuana-related indictments should have been granted on speedy trial grounds. The Fourth Department found that defense counsel’s letter asking for a discussion of a plea bargain could not be construed as a waiver of defendant’s speedy trial rights:

Defense counsel did not explicitly state or even suggest in his letter that he was waiving his client’s rights to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30; instead, counsel merely requested an opportunity to discuss a plea bargain before the District Attorney presented the case to the grand jury. In our view, that request does not constitute an explicit and “unambiguous” waiver of defendant’s speedy trial rights … , and we thus conclude that “the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the disputed . . . period was not chargeable to them” … . People v Leubner, 2016 NY Slip Op 06569, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS)

, , ,

EXPERT’S INABILITY TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DIMINISHED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME DID NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (on the issue of causation) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the delay in diagnosing or failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s condition diminished plaintiff’s decedent’s chance of a better outcome. Plaintiff’s expert’s inability to quantify the extent to which defendants’ conduct diminished the chance of a better outcome did not render the proof insufficient:

In order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” (PJI 2:70…). Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed or delayed in diagnosing and treating a condition, a finding that the negligence was a proximate cause of an injury to the patient may be predicated on the theory that the defendant thereby “diminished [the patient’s] chance of a better outcome,” in this case, survival … . In that instance, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care … . However, “[a] plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome . . . , as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome’ … . Clune v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 06331, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

,

INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Fourth Department determined a 17-year-old (Taquilo) could be liable for a dog bite, despite the fact that the dog was owned by his father (Rogelio). The court further determined the punitive damages claim against Taquilo properly survived the motion for summary judgment:

We reject defendants’ contention that Taquilo is relieved of potential liability for the child’s injuries based upon Taquilo’s age at the time of the incident. “It is elementary in this State that an infant may be held civilly liable for damages caused by his [or her] tortious acts” … , and defendants cite no authority to support their contention that an infant cannot be subject to strict liability for harm caused by an animal. Nor is it dispositive that the dog was owned by Taquilo’s father, Rogelio. “Strict liability can . . . be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … . Here, defendants’ own submissions raise issues of fact whether Taquilo harbored the dog … , and whether he knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities … . Cruz v Stachowski, 2016 NY Slip Op 06327, 4th Dept 9-30-16

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/DOG BITE (INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

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