You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not make an adequate inquiry into defendant's complaint about a conflict of interest with defense counsel:

… [T]he court violated [defendant's] right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaint regarding a conflict of interest with defense counsel. Prior to commencement of a scheduled suppression hearing, defense counsel informed the court that, based on recent discussions, defendant wanted to request new counsel, and that there had been a breakdown in communication between defense counsel and defendant regarding the issues that they needed to address. Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. '[A]lthough there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” … . Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel's admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” … . People v Tucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 03637, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant alleged his attorney wrongly told him there was no possibility defendant would be deported based upon the conviction:

In support of his motion, defendant, who is not a United States citizen, submitted an affidavit in which he asserted that his attorney advised him prior to the plea that “there is no way in the world” that he would be deported as a result of his plea because he was being sentenced to less than five years in prison. Defendant further asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea. According to defendant, he was deported to Jamaica after serving his term of imprisonment.

As the Court of Appeals has held, an affirmative misstatement of the law regarding the deportation consequences of a plea may provide a basis for vacatur of the plea if it can be shown that the defendant was thereby prejudiced, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not otherwise have pleaded guilty … . Here, we conclude that defendant's sworn assertions, if true, entitle him to relief and, because it cannot be said that his assertions are incredible as a matter of law, a hearing is required. We reject the People's contention that the court properly denied the motion because defendant failed to submit an affidavit from his former attorney corroborating his claim … . Where, as here, defendant's “application is adverse and hostile to his trial attorney,” it “is wasteful and unnecessary” to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his failure to do so … . Moreover, contrary to the People's further contention, defendant's assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been properly advised regarding deportation is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether he was prejudiced by counsel's alleged error … . People v Bennett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03608, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)

,

CAUSE OF FALL SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the cause of her fall with circumstantial evidence. The defense motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

” In a slip and fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall' without engaging in speculation” … . In a circumstantial evidence case, however, “[the] plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence . . . , [but the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, plaintiff consistently testified that her shoe became caught on a crack in the step, which caused her to fall. Although there were no witnesses to the fall, and plaintiff could not remember seeing the crack at the time of the accident, she testified that the fall occurred in the immediate vicinity of a crack in the step, as revealed by a photograph in the record, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [her] fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . Rinallo v St. Casimir Parish & Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 03323, 4th Dept 4-29-16


, ,

DISABLED POLICE OFFICER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACHES OF A DUTY OF CARE BY THE CITY AND BY HEALTH CARE MANAGERS WHICH CONTRACTED WITH THE CITY TO MANAGE PLAINTIFF’S HEALTH CARE.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a disabled police officer, had sufficiently alleged breaches of a duty of care by the city and by the health care providers who contracted with the city to manage plaintiff's health care. With respect to the contracting health care managers, the court wrote:

It is well established that there are situations in which “a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: [i.e.,] where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [the party's] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm' ” … , and thereby “creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, or increases that risk” … . Indeed, “[t]his principle recognizes that the duty to avoid harm to others is distinct from the contractual duty of performance” … . Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true … , we conclude that the amended complaint alleges that those defendants assumed a duty of care to plaintiff and that, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of their duties, they increased the risk of harm to plaintiff. Vassenelli v City of Syracuse, 2016 NY Slip Op 03344, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

PROPERTY OWNER (LANDLORD) LIABLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED BY THE LEASE AND CONTRACTED FOR BY THE LESSEE.

The Fourth Department determined the owner of property leased to the party who hired an electrical contractor was liable for payment of the electrical contractor's mechanic's lien. As part of the lease agreement, the owner/landlord required the lessee (Peaches) to contract for the electrical work. The Fourth Department noted that all the other departments have held the owner is not liable in this context unless the owner directly contracted for the work. The Fourth Department concluded, however, that a Court of Appeals case controlled:

Lien Law § 3 provides in relevant part that a “contractor . . . who performs labor or furnishes materials for the improvement of real property with the consent or at the request of the owner thereof . . . shall have a lien . . . upon the real property improved.” For purposes of this provision, a “requirement in a contract between . . . landlord and tenant, that the . . . tenant shall make certain improvements on the premises is a sufficient consent of the owner to charge his property with claims which accrue in making those improvements” (Jones v Menke, 168 NY 61, 64; see De Klyn v Gould, 165 NY 282, 287). The Court of Appeals subsequently reaffirmed Jones's broad interpretation of section 3 in McNulty Bros. v Offerman (221 NY 98), holding that, as long as “the liens have been confined to work called for by the lease[,] . . . the landlords' estate may be charged to the same extent as if the owners of that estate had ordered the work themselves. In substance, they have made the lessee their agent for that purpose” (id. at 106). Jones and McNulty Bros. have not been overturned or disavowed. Ferrara v Peaches Café LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03286, 4th Dept 4-29-16


IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial in a personal injury action because defense counsel violated rules of evidence re: impeachment with collateral matters. Defense counsel improperly introduced evidence of plaintiff's drug test results and improperly informed the jury of prior lawsuits brought by plaintiff:

It is well settled that a cross-examiner at trial is “bound by the answers of the witness to questions on collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility” … , and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to impeach a witness's credibility after the witness has provided an answer with which the cross-examiner is unsatisfied … . Here, defense counsel asked plaintiff during cross-examination whether she had failed an employment-related drug test, a collateral issue relevant only to plaintiff's credibility. In response, plaintiff testified that the test result was a “false positive” that was proved false upon retesting. Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff's assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff's credibility … .

The impact of that improper conduct was compounded when defense counsel thereafter questioned defendant's medical expert, over plaintiff's objection, about “drug use history” notations in plaintiff's medical records that, according to the expert, raised questions as to plaintiff's “credibility.” * * *

Finally, despite the court's pretrial ruling precluding defendants from questioning plaintiff about a personal injury claim she had filed in connection with a prior accident, defense counsel, over objection, asked plaintiff if she had been involved in any “legal action” related to her “neck and/or back condition.” Because evidence of prior accidents and lawsuits related thereto “may not [be used to] . . . demonstrate that plaintiff is litigious and therefore unworthy of belief” … , it was error for the court to allow that questioning. In our view, the improper attacks on plaintiff's credibility, viewed as a whole, denied plaintiff a fair trial. Dunn v Garrett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03283, 4th Dept 4-29-16


, ,

STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN APPROVAL BEFORE WATER CAN BE EXTRACTED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

The Fourth Department determined the state Water Resources Law, which governs the extraction of groundwater, did not preempt the town zoning board's special-permit condition requiring town approval before water can be extracted for commercial purposes. Petitioner sought to build a pipeline to carry water from under petitioner's land to another town where the water would be sold. Petitioner argued the Water Resources Law preempted the town from requiring approval for commercial use of the extracted water. The Fourth Department held that the town's power to regulate the use of land, here requiring permission before water can be extracted for commercial purposes, was not limited by the Water Resources Law:

… [T]he Water Resources Law (ECL article 15, et seq.) does not preempt local zoning laws concerning land use. Instead, the Water Resources Law preempts only those local laws that attempt “to regulate withdrawals of groundwater,” which “includes all surface and underground water within the state's territorial limits” … . The Water Resources Law does not preempt the authority of local governments to “regulate the use of land through the enactment of zoning laws” … . * * * … [T]he statute regulates how a natural resource may be extracted but does not regulate where in the Town such extraction may occur. Matter of Smoke v Planning Bd. of Town of Greig, 2016 NY Slip Op 03322, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant's codefendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, testified against the defendant. The attorney who represented the codefendant and defendant's counsel were members of the same law firm. This situation has the potential of depriving defendant of his right to effective counsel requiring an inquiry by the court to ensure defendant is aware of all the facts and consents:

“Absent inquiry by the court and consent by the defendant, an attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in a trial at which a star prosecution witness is a codefendant whose plea bargain—including the promise to testify against defendant—was negotiated by a partner in the same firm. In these circumstances defendant is denied his right to effective assistance of counsel” … . Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel's law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” … . People v Jackson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-29-16


FAILURE TO PLACE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUNBELT DURING TRIAL, AND FAILURE TO APPRISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined County Court erred by failing to place on the record the reasons for requiring defendant to wear a stun belt during the trial, and by failing to apprise defense counsel of the contents of a note from the jury prior to accepting a verdict (an error that does not require preservation by objection):

We agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that a new trial is required based on the court's failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in regard to Court Exhibit 11, a note from the jury during its deliberations. “[T]he [c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict' ” … . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required' ” … . Contrary to the People's contention, the presumption of regularity does not apply to errors of this kind … . People v Gomez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03358, 4th Dept 4-29-16


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