You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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)

,

COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, reinstated three indictment counts which County Court had dismissed. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for sufficient evidence in grand jury proceedings and the court’s sufficiency-review powers. Here it was determined County Court improperly weighed the evidence:

“The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be sufficient to warrant conviction by a trial jury” … . “On a motion to dismiss, the reviewing court’s inquiry is confined to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the court is not to weigh the proof or examine its adequacy” … . ” In the context of the [g]rand [j]ury procedure, legally sufficient means prima facie, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … . Further, the fact “[t]hat other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant on this pleading stage inquiry, as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference” … .

Here, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , is legally sufficient to support the counts that were dismissed by County Court, and that the court improperly weighed the evidence … . People v Roth, 2016 NY Slip Op 05257, 4th Dept 7-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)/EVIDENCE (GRAND JURY, COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)/GRAND JURY (COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS)

, ,

ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED.

The Fourth Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator exceeded his powers vacation of the award was therefore proper. The arbitration concerned the termination of a deputy sheriff for driving while intoxicated and related charges. The arbitrator refused to consider some of the evidence (finding it inadmissible) and reinstated the deputy:

“Under CPLR 7511 (b) an arbitration award must be vacated if, as relevant here, a party’s rights were impaired by an arbitrator who exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made’ ” … . “It is well settled that a court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact’ ” … .

Here, we conclude that the arbitrator clearly exceeded his authority as provided by the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]. The CBA mandated that “[t]he arbitrator shall review the record of the disciplinary hearing and determine if the finding of guilt was based upon clear and convincing evidence.” Rather than comply with that mandate and review the record from the hearing, the arbitrator considered a portion of the record only, deciding to exclude certain evidence from his review. Having failed to review that which he was required to review, the court properly concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and vacated the arbitration award … . Matter of O’Flynn (Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., Inc.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05261, 4th Dept 7-1-16

 

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)

,

TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD.

The Fourth Department upheld the state's ability to impose a tax on the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians and non-members of the Seneca Nation:

It is well established that “the States have a valid interest in ensuring compliance with lawful taxes that might easily be evaded through purchases of tax-exempt cigarettes on reservations . . . States may impose on reservation retailers minimal burdens reasonably tailored to the collection of valid taxes from non-Indians” … . Although plaintiffs are obligated to pay the amount due as tax from non-Indians who have the tax liability, and from whom the amount is collected at the time of the sale, “this burden is not, strictly speaking, a tax at all” … . White v Schneiderman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04533, 4th Dept 6-18-16

TAX LAW (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)/INDIAN LAW (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)/CIGARETTES (TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine, despite gaps in treatment exceeding the statute of limitations:

The determination whether continuous treatment exists “must focus on the patient” … and, “[i]n determining whether plaintiff[] raised an issue of fact concerning the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine, [her] version of the facts must be accepted as true” … . Based on plaintiff’s version of the facts, there is support in the record for a finding that plaintiff “intended uninterrupted reliance” upon defendant’s observation, directions, concern, and responsibility for overseeing her progress. Notably, during approximately 7 years of treatment with defendant, plaintiff underwent two surgeries, saw no other physician regarding her shoulder, and returned to him for further treatment, i.e., a potential third surgery, but was told that he did not treat or operate on shoulders anymore. Defendant referred plaintiff to another physician in his practice, and plaintiff went to that appointment, but was told that the second physician would not treat her. Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff left the September 5, 2003 appointment with a direction to see defendant “as needed” is not dispositive inasmuch as defendant conceded that “[o]bviously [plaintiff’s] problem is long standing and chronic. She most likely will need further surgery in the future due to her young age and need for revision shoulder replacement vs fusions.” Lohnas v Luzi, 2016 NY Slip Op 04819, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department determined the gunpoint detention of defendant was not justified by what the officer knew or observed. The motion to suppress the seized marijuana and handgun should have been granted:

The People concede that the sergeant’s encounter with defendant constituted a level three forcible detention under People v De Bour …, and thus required “a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . “[A]ctions that are at all times innocuous and readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation . . . may not generate a founded suspicion of criminality” … .

We agree with defendant that the arresting sergeant lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion. There is no evidence in the record that the sergeant was informed of the recovery of marihuana in the area the day before defendant’s arrest, and defendant’s actions in merely “grabbing” at his waistline and bending down to the floor of the vehicle, without more, were insufficient to provide the sergeant with the requisite suspicion that defendant committed a crime, and to justify defendant’s gunpoint detention … . People v Elliott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04838, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department determined there were insufficient grounds for a strip search and defendant’s motion to suppress the drugs seized from his person should have been granted:

… [T]he search performed by the officer constituted a strip search … , which must be justified by “a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing” … . We conclude that the officer did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion. Defendant was fully cooperative with the officer, admitting his possession of marihuana and denying possession of any other contraband. There was no indication that defendant might be concealing any contraband under his clothing, and the mere fact that he possessed marihuana does not justify a strip search. Although the People assert that the search was justified because defendant appeared to be nervous about being searched, the record reflects that defendant became nervous only after the officer began to perform the strip search … . People v Tisdale, 2016 NY Slip Op 04842, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STRIP SEARCH (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

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