You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department concluded sanctions for spoliation of evidence were appropriate, but striking defendant's pleadings was too severe a sanction. Plaintiff alleged injury from glass which fell out of defendant's (IGT's) video slot machine. Although the complaint was filed in 2008, the request to maintain the condition of the machine was not made until 2010 and the request to examine the machine was not made until 2011. The machine had been scrapped in the regular course of business in 2008:

… [W]e conclude that plaintiffs established that some sanction is warranted because IGT negligently failed to preserve the machine, but plaintiffs failed to show that the destruction of the machine was intentional or contumacious, to warrant the sanctions imposed by the court. To the contrary, the only evidence in the record concerning this issue is that IGT scrapped the machine in the normal course of business, as part of the removal and destruction of a large number of machines to create additional space in the casino. In addition, IGT established that the machine was removed from the casino at the request of the casino's owners, who were no longer parties to this action, which belies plaintiffs' contention that IGT removed and destroyed the machine for litigation purposes.

Contrary to plaintiffs' further contention, they failed to establish that the machine was destroyed before they had an opportunity to inspect it, and thus plaintiffs failed to establish that the extreme sanctions of striking IGT's answer and granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability against IGT were warranted … . Mahiques v County of Niagara, 2016 NY Slip Op 02190, 4th Dept 3-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/SPOLIATION (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have considered allegations of a serious injury in a car-accident case which were raised for the first time in a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” submitted in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion:

… [D]efendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to meet the serious injury threshold and for failure to incur economic loss exceeding basic economic loss. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” in which they added an allegation that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury under the significant disfigurement category of serious injury (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Defendant objected to plaintiffs' attempt to ” supplement' ” their bill of particulars in opposition to the motion.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion insofar as it concerned plaintiffs' claims for economic loss, but denied the motion “in all other respects.” In its decision supporting the order, the court wrote that the evidence submitted by plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact on all three categories of serious injury. Only defendant appeals.

We agree with defendant that plaintiffs improperly asserted a “new injury” in their “supplemental verified bill of particulars” (CPLR 3043 [b] …), and that the court erred in considering that new category of serious injury inasmuch as it was raised for the first time in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment … . We thus conclude that the claim of significant disfigurement was not cognizable by the court … , that it was error for the court to consider the new injury claim … , and that the court should have disregarded evidence related to that category of serious injury … . Stamps v Pudetti, 2016 NY Slip Op 02272, 4th Dept 3-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)

,

INADEQUATE INQUIRY PRECEDING FATHER’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court's order finding father willfully violated a support order because of the court's inadequate inquiry into father's waiver of his right to counsel:

At the parties' initial appearance, the Support Magistrate informed the father only that he had “the right to hire a lawyer [or] talk for [himself],” asked the father to choose between those options, and conducted no further inquiry when the father chose to proceed pro se. The Support Magistrate thus failed to inform the father of his right to have counsel assigned if he could not afford to retain an attorney … , and also failed to engage the father in the requisite searching inquiry concerning his decision to proceed pro se and thereby ensure that the father was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel … . Matter of Soldato v Caringi, 2016 NY Slip Op 02265, 4th Dept 3-25-16

FAMILY LAW (INADEQUATE INQUIRY PRECEDING FATHER'S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED REVERSAL)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, INADEQUATE INQUIRY PRECEDING FATHER'S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED; EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined the evidence did not support an intent to harass and the family offense petition was dismissed. The court noted the fact that the related protective order had expired did not render the appeal moot because the order still imposes significant enduring consequences that can be relieved by an appellate decision:

The Referee found that respondent committed a family offense, i.e., harassment in the second degree, based upon the Referee's conclusion that respondent told petitioner during a lengthy telephone call that he did not know what he would do if he saw her with another man, sent her two or three text messages stating that he hoped to reconcile with her, and then left on petitioner's car several mementos that petitioner had given him along with the message that he would “never forget [her], bye.” Notwithstanding the Referee's implicit finding that petitioner was upset by the communications, “her reaction is immaterial in establishing [respondent]'s intent” … . Furthermore, although “[t]he requisite intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances” … , the circumstances here failed to establish that respondent acted with the requisite intent. Even crediting the Referee's credibility determinations that respondent engaged in the conduct described above, we conclude that such conduct was comprised of relatively innocuous acts that were insufficient to establish that respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to harass, alarm or annoy petitioner … . Matter of Shephard v Ray, 2016 NY Slip Op 02239, 4th Dept 3-25-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSE, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSE, EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL)/FAMILY OFFENSE (HARASSMENT, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/HARASSMENT (FAMILY OFFENSE, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/APPEALS (FAMILY OFFENSE, EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL)

DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A LINCOLN HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should have held a Lincoln hearing before granting father's motion to dismiss mother's petition to modify a custody order which awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of their daughter, now 14, to father:

We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the mother's request that it conduct a Lincoln hearing before ruling on the father's motion … . Such a hearing may be conducted “during or after fact-finding” … , and may be used to support an allegation of a change in circumstances … . The decision whether to conduct such a hearing is discretionary, but it is “often the preferable course” to conduct one … .

In this case, the child was 14 years old at the time of trial and expressed a preference to live with the mother, the Attorney for the Child did not oppose a Lincoln hearing, and many of the changed circumstances alleged by the mother concerned matters within the personal knowledge of the child but not that of the mother or her witnesses. Under those circumstances, we conclude that a Lincoln hearing would have provided the court with ” significant pieces of information [it needed] to make the soundest possible decision' ” … . Matter of Noble v Brown, 2016 NY Slip Op 02238, 4th Dept 3-25-16

FAMILY LAW (DENIAL OF MOTHER'S REQUEST FOR A LINCOLN HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, DENIAL OF MOTHER'S REQUEST FOR A LINCOLN HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/LINCOLN HEARING (DENIAL OF MOTHER'S REQUEST FOR A LINCOLN HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

,

SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER NOTICE OF CLAIM TO REFLECT ALLEGATIONS OF AN ASSAULT AND RAPE SHE MADE IN HER DEPOSITION, ALLEGATIONS WHICH DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiff, a special needs student, to amend her notice of claim to reflect allegations made in her deposition. At the deposition, she alleged she was raped by an African-American male under the bleachers on the athletic field. Her original notice of claim alleged she was raped by a white man in a locker room. The essence of the notice of claim was the school district's failure to supervise plaintiff, who was always to be accompanied by an aide. The Fourth Department determined the essence of the claim, failure to supervise, remained unchanged and the amendment would not prejudice the school district:

“Pursuant to [General Municipal Law] section 50-e (6), a court in its discretion may permit the correction of a notice of claim where there has been a mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith . . . , provided it shall appear that the other party was not prejudiced thereby' ” … . We conclude that Doe's documented delays in cognitive and social functioning, together with her fear of the assailant and post traumatic stress disorder allegedly resulting from the attack, provide a good faith basis for the amendment sought by plaintiffs … .

We further conclude that the District is not prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Contrary to the contention of the District, the amendment sought by plaintiffs does not make “substantive changes in the theory of liability” … . Plaintiffs' theory of liability in the original notice of claim was that Doe suffered injury as the result of the District's negligent failure to provide the level of supervision that it had previously determined was necessary for her, i.e., door-to-door transportation and an aide to accompany her at all times throughout the school day. Plaintiffs' claim remains that defendant was negligent in failing to supervise Doe, regardless of the identity of her assailant or the precise location of the attack. Doe v Rochester City School Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 02275, 4th Dept 3-25-16

EDUCATION SCHOOL LAW (SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER NOTICE OF CLAIM TO REFLECT ALLEGATIONS OF AN ASSAULT AND RAPE SHE MADE IN HER DEPOSITION, ALLEGATIONS WHICH DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM)/MUNCIPAL LAW (SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER NOTICE OF CLAIM TO REFLECT ALLEGATIONS OF AN ASSAULT AND RAPE SHE MADE IN HER DEPOSITION, ALLEGATIONS WHICH DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM)/NOTICE OF CLAIM  (SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER NOTICE OF CLAIM TO REFLECT ALLEGATIONS OF AN ASSAULT AND RAPE SHE MADE IN HER DEPOSITION, ALLEGATIONS WHICH DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM)

, ,

SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined cocaine found on defendant's person in a strip search should have been suppressed. Defendant was stopped on the street after the police saw an exchange between defendant and a woman. The defendant was patted down with his consent but nothing was found. The defendant was then placed in the back of a police car uncuffed. When the police questioned the woman, she told them defendant had cocaine between his buttocks, where it was eventually found. The trial court found defendant had been illegally detained but did not suppress. The court noted that, because the illegal detention finding was not adverse to the defendant, the court could not consider the issue on appeal. Therefore, the People's argument that the police actions were proper from the outset could not be entertained. The court concluded the seizure of the cocaine was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal detention:

As a preliminary matter, we note that, “[s]ince we are reviewing a judgment on the defendant's appeal, and the issue of whether the defendant was [unlawfully detained] was not decided adversely to him, we are jurisdictionally barred from considering” the People's contention that the police officers' encounter with defendant was lawful at its inception and at every stage thereafter … .

We agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that the seizure of evidence from his person was attenuated from the taint of the illegality … . “While the effect of illegally initiated police intrusion may potentially become attenuated, as a practical matter there is rarely opportunity for the attenuation of primary official illegality in the context of brief, rapidly unfolding street or roadside encounters predicated on less than probable cause . . . [O]nce a wrongful police-initiated intrusion is established, suppression of closely after-acquired evidence appears to follow ineluctably” … . People v King, 2016 NY Slip Op 02264, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STREET STOPS (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL)

, ,

MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT’S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER.

The Fourth Department determined the denial of defendant's midtrial motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant should not have been denied without a hearing. The search warrant application was not provided to the defense until after the trial had begun. The application indicated probable cause for the warrant was gained through a prior “security sweep” of the building:

In determining whether a hearing is required pursuant to CPL 710.60, “the sufficiency of defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … . We note that the motion was not required to be made in writing, as would be required for a pretrial motion to suppress (see CPL 710.60 [1]) and, because it was properly “made orally in open court” during trial, the court was required, “where necessary, [to] conduct a hearing as provided in [CPL 710.60 (4)], out of the presence of the jury if any, and make findings of fact essential to the determination of the motion” (CPL 710.60 [5]).

We conclude that a hearing was necessary herein. Defendant's allegation that the search was of his home was sufficient “to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” … . * * * … [T]he People's current contention [that the sweep was justified by exigent circumstances] … ” raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . Thus, before ruling on the motion, “it was incumbent upon [Supreme C]ourt to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances [or other factors such as an ongoing emergency situation that would] justify the . . . warrantless entry” into the building … . Therefore, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant's midtrial suppression motion … . People v Samuel, 2016 NY Slip Op 02222, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)

,

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction for possession of a weapon, finding the People's request for a constructive-possession jury instruction should not have been granted. The defendant had been seen holding an object that appeared to have been fired and DNA evidence tied defendant to a revolver that was found five feet away from where defendant was lying, shot, in a parking lot.  There was no evidence which warranted a jury charge on constructive, as opposed to physical, possession of the weapon:

To meet their burden of proving defendant's constructive possession of the [revolver], the People had to establish that defendant exercised dominion or control over [the revolver] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . Here, we conclude that there is no view of the evidence that defendant had constructive possession of the revolver … . Defendant's “mere presence in an area where” the revolver was found “is not sufficient to establish that he exercised such dominion and control as to establish constructive possession” … . We further conclude that the error is not harmless inasmuch as we cannot determine if the verdict was based upon defendant's physical possession of the revolver or his constructive possession of it … . People v Diallo, 2016 NY Slip Op 02213, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court's granting of defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a search warrant for a house (285 Lincoln Avenue). The search warrant sought evidence of a murder at a residence on Grafton Street. The defendant had been driven to the Grafton Street residence on the day of the murder. The search warrant at issue was for a different residence, 285 Lincoln Avenue. The search warrant application was based upon evidence the defendant's cell phone had been in the vicinity of the 285 Lincoln Avenue, the defendant had been seen in the driveway of 285 Lincoln Avenue, and defendant was a Facebook friend of the person to whom the utilities at 285 Lincoln Avenue were registered. However defendant was never seen entering 295 Lincoln Avenue and the search warrant application did not provide probable cause to believe evidence of the Grafton Street murder would be found at the property:

It is well settled that a search warrant may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur … , and where there is sufficient evidence from which to form a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime may be found inside the location sought to be searched … . Here, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the application for the search warrant contained no specific factual allegations that tied the location of 285 Lincoln Avenue to the evidence sought to be seized; failed to establish any dominion and control of 285 Lincoln Avenue by defendant; and failed to tie defendant to the Grafton Street murder, or to his possession of evidence or contraband pertaining to that murder … . People v Moxley, 2016 NY Slip Op 02192, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES  (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)

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