You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, MADE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, WAS NOT UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s request to proceed pro se, made prior to the prosecution’s opening statement, was not untimely and should not have been summarily denied on that ground. A new trial was ordered:

… [T]he judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial granted because the court erred in summarily denying, as untimely, his request to proceed pro se … . “Although requests [to proceed pro se] on the eve of trial are discouraged, the Court of Appeals has found that a request may be considered timely when it is interposed prior to the prosecution’s opening statement,’ as here”… . People v Smith. 2015 NY Slip Op 09757, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.

Upon remittitur after reversal by the Court of Appeals, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings re: the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement entered into by the Village of Painted Post. The Lease Agreement concerned the construction of a railroad transloading facility and the Water Agreement concerned the sale of one million gallons of water per day (gpd) to be transported (by rail) to Pennsylvania. The Fourth Department determined the Water Agreement was a Type I, not Type II, action which required review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Because the Village of Painted Post did not conduct a SEQRA review of the Water Agreement, the relevant village resolutions were annulled and a consolidated SEQRA review of both the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement was ordered:

Although the Water Agreement does not call for the use of “ground or surface water in excess of [two million gpd]” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [6] [ii]) and thus is not a Type I action under that subsection, Type I actions also include “any Unlisted action[] that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [10]). Where, as here, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has set a threshold clarifying that the use of a certain amount of a natural resource, e.g., land or water, constitutes a Type I action, it is reasonable to assume that the DEC has “implicitly determined that an annexation of less than [that threshold] is an [U]nlisted action’ ” … . We thus conclude therefrom that the Water Agreement is implicitly an Unlisted action. Inasmuch as there is also evidence in the record that the transloading facility may be substantially contiguous to a publicly owned park and the Water Agreement calls for the use of surface water in the amount of one million gpd, i.e., 50% of the threshold in section 617.4 (b) (6) (ii), the Water Agreement could also be deemed a Type I action under 6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (10).

Consequently, SEQRA review was required for the Water Agreement. Although the Village conducted a SEQRA review of the Lease Agreement, segmentation, i.e., the division of environmental review for different sections or stages of a project (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]), is generally disfavored … . We thus conclude that the court properly determined, on the merits of the first cause of action, that all of respondent Village’s resolutions should be annulled and that a consolidated SEQRA review of both agreements was required. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 09707, 4th Dept 12-31-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/WATER (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)

, ,

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A TRIABLE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS SEXUAL CONDUCT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-sex-offender’s motion for a directed verdict in an Article 10 trial should not have been granted. Petitioner had been deemed a dangerous sex offender and was committed to a secure facility. In the instant proceeding, petitioner sought release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment. The state presented evidence petitioner had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, paraphila otherwise specified, and cannabis dependence.  The majority concluded that the state’s expert, Dr. Prince, had presented sufficient additional evidence, including a history of defendant’s sexual behavior, his response to treatment, and the results of psychological tests, to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had serious difficulty in controlling difficulty controlling his sexual conduct:

When coupled with the evidence of petitioner’s clear, well-defined cycle of offending that begins with becoming frustrated, the deficits in his recent treatment plan on that specific area, and his stagnating course of treatment, we conclude that Dr. Prince’s opinion and the supporting evidence, ” when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, [establish that petitioner is a] . . . dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment[, rather than a] dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case’ ” … . Thus, respondents submitted sufficient evidence that, if it is credited by the factfinder, would establish that petitioner has a condition, disease or disorder “that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [petitioner] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (§ 10.03 [i] …). Consequently, we conclude that, if the factfinder accepts that evidence, there is a “rational process by which the [factfinder] could find for [respondents] as against” petitioner … . Matter of Wright v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09711, 4th Dept 12-31-15

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)

,

JUDGE’S RESPONSE TO JURY NOTE ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge’s response to a jury note allowed the jury to consider evidence of actions not charged in the indictment. Defendant’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was therefore reversed and the indictment was dismissed:

As set forth in the indictment and bill of particulars, as well as pursuant to the People’s theory at trial, the endangerment charge was based on the conduct alleged in the preceding six counts of rape in the second degree and incest in the second degree, of which defendant was acquitted. After receiving a jury note during deliberations, the court instructed the jurors that they were not precluded from considering conduct other than the alleged rape and incest when considering the endangerment charge. That instruction allowed the jury to consider conduct not charged in the indictment. ” Because the jury may have convicted defendant of . . . act[s] . . . for which he was not indicted, defendant’s right to have charges preferred by the [g]rand [j]ury rather than the prosecutor at trial was violated’ ” … . Additionally, based on the vague nature of the court’s instruction, “[i]t is impossible to ascertain what alleged act of [endangerment] was found by the jury to have occurred, whether it was one . . . for which he was indicted, or indeed whether different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts” … . People v Utley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09749, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)

,

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF A RECALL AND EVIDENCE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN.

The Fourth Department, eliminating restrictions on the evidence imposed by Supreme Court, determined evidence from plaintiffs’ electrical expert and evidence of customer complaints were relevant to defendants’ duty to warn. Plaintiffs alleged an electrical defect in their motorcycle (manufactured by defendants) caused the accident. Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of a recall made prior to the accident and evidence of customer complaints:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ electrical engineer expert and the customer complaints to the extent that such evidence is relevant to defendants’ continuing duty to warn. We therefore modify the order accordingly. “A manufacturer or retailer may . . . incur liability for failing to warn concerning dangers in the use of a product which come to his attention after manufacture or sale . . . through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product of which warning should be given to users . . . Although a product [may] be reasonably safe when manufactured and sold and involve no then known risks of which warning need be given, risks thereafter revealed by user operation and brought to the attention of the manufacturer or vendor may impose upon one or both a duty to warn” … . “What notice . . . will trigger [this] postdelivery duty to warn appears to be a function of the degree of danger which the problem involves and the number of instances reported . . . [Whether] a prima facie case on that issue has been made will, of course, depend on the facts of each case” … .

Defendant’s recall was first issued in March 2004, prior to plaintiffs’ accident on April 30, 2004. A determination that plaintiffs’ motorcycle should have been included in the recall would be relevant to defendants’ duty to warn plaintiffs of the defect that, plaintiffs allege, caused a “quit while riding” event in their motorcycle and thereby caused or contributed to their accident. Plaintiffs’ expert, an electrical engineer, expects to testify in part that plaintiffs’ motorcycle does not differ in any material respect from those included in the 2004 recall, despite the fact that plaintiffs’ motorcycle did not have the same stator as the motorcycles affected by the recall. In our view, the expert’s qualifications as an electrical engineer qualify him to opine whether the motorcycles “were the same in all significant respects” … , and the fact that the expert has done no testing goes to the weight to be given to his testimony, not its admissibility … . Smalley v Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09712, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENDE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/DUTY TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)

VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE ASSAULT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS.

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department concluded the victim’s death five months after the assault was sufficiently linked to defendant’s actions:

… [I]t has long been the rule in New York that ” [i]f a person inflicts a wound . . . in such manner as to put life in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of this felonious and wicked act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result. Indeed, it may be said that neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment, which were of themselves consequences of the criminal act, which might naturally follow in any case, must in law be deemed to have been among those which were in contemplation of the guilty party, and for which he is to be held responsible’ ” … . Thus, “[f]or criminal liability to attach, a defendant’s actions must have been an actual contributory cause of death, in the sense that they forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death’ ” … . Additionally, the “defendant’s acts need not be the sole cause of death; where the necessary causative link is established, other causes, such as a victim’s preexisting condition, will not relieve the defendant of responsibility for homicide . . . By the same token, death need not follow on the heels of injury” … . People v Pratcher, 2015 NY Slip Op 09730, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER ASSAULT SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS)/MURDER (VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER ASSAULT SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS)

, ,

SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.

Plaintiff sued the county alleging plaintiff’s decedent was not properly screened and supervised when placed in the Erie County Holding Center where plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff was allowed to add the Erie County Sheriff as a defendant. The Fourth Department reversed, explaining that the Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the actions of the Sheriff’s Department and is therefore not “united in interest” with the County/Sheriff’s Department:

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant[s], and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well” … .

…. [Plaintiff did not satisfy the second prong, i.e., unity of interest. “In [the] context [of this case], unity of interest means that the interest of the parties in the [subject matter] is such that they stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other . . . Although the parties might share a multitude of commonalities, . . . the unity of interest test will not be satisfied unless the parties share precisely the same jural relationship in the action at hand . . . Indeed, unless the original defendant[s] and new [defendant] are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] . . . there is no unity of interest between them” … .

Here, defendant County of Erie (County) is not united in interest with the Sheriff inasmuch as the County cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the Sheriff or his deputies … . Nor is defendant Erie County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) united in interest with the Sheriff for purposes of the relation back doctrine. The Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the deputies employed at the Holding Center … . In addition, the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County … , and thus an “action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself” … . Given that the Sheriff and the County are not united in interest, it follows that the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department are not united in interest, and the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the Sheriff as a party. Johanson v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 09736, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/SHERIFF  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)

, ,

CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED IN CASE ALLEGING NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

In an action alleging defendants negligently discharged chemicals into the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction of property values and quality of life, the Fourth Department determined a class action was properly certified. The court explained the criteria:

“[A] class action may be maintained in New York only after the five prerequisites set forth in CPLR 901 (a) have been met, i.e., the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class as a whole, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy” … . A plaintiff seeking class certification has the “burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901 (a) and thus establish[ing] . . . entitlement to class certification” … .

Although the individual class members may have sustained differing amounts of damages, it is well settled that ” the amount of damages suffered by each class member typically varies from individual to individual, but that fact will not prevent the suit from going forward as a class action if the important legal or factual issues involving liability are common to the class’ ” … . * * *

… [B]ecause “the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the claims and the underlying transaction, not the amount or measure of damages, [the fact that the class representative’s] damages may differ from those of other members of the class is not a proper basis to deny class certification” … . DeLuca v Tonawanda Coke Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09739, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/CLASS ACTION (PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/NEGLIGENCE (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)

, ,

VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s violation of a civil contempt order was properly admitted in defendant’s grand larceny trial to show larcenous intent:

The … order directed defendant’s businesses to turn over all monies they had received as a result of defendant diverting credit card proceeds from Webster Hospitality Development LLC (WHD), a company in which defendant held majority ownership and which was in receivership, to undisclosed bank accounts maintained for defendant’s businesses. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the contempt order does not constitute a finding that defendant stole the money; rather, it demonstrates that defendant’s businesses failed to abide by the earlier order to return money to WHD and to provide certain documentation to the receiver. We thus conclude that the contempt order was properly admitted as relevant evidence of defendant’s intent to deprive WHD of the money by “withhold[ing] it or caus[ing] it to be withheld from [WHD] permanently” (§ 155.00 [3]; see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293). Moreover, we note that “[l]arcenous intent . . . is rarely susceptible of proof by direct evidence, and must usually be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions’ ” … . Here, the contempt order had significant probative value inasmuch as it showed that defendant’s conduct did not merely constitute poor financial management but, rather, that defendant, through his businesses, intended to deprive WHD of the diverted money permanently. The court therefore properly concluded that “the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect” … . People v Frumusa, 2015 NY Slip Op 09718, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE  (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)

LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Plaintiff was injured when using a nail gun. A nail ricocheted and struck his eye. The Fourth Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action because eye protection was required by the Industrial Code, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because there were questions of fact whether eye protection was available to the plaintiff. The court noted that the risk of eye injury from use of a nail gun is more apparent than any such risk associated with manual hammering:

We reject defendant’s contention that it was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to this Court’s holding in Herman v Lancaster Homes (145 AD2d 926, 926, lv denied 74 NY2d 601). Unlike the circumstances in Herman, plaintiff herein was not manually hammering nails but, rather, was operating a pneumatic nail gun when a nail ricocheted and penetrated his right eye. In our view, “the dangers a nail gun present[s] to the eyes are more apparent tha[n] the dangers of manual hammering” … and the plaintiff’s use of the nail gun clearly falls within the regulatory definition of engaging “in any other operation which may endanger the eyes” (12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that plaintiff established as a matter of law that the regulation applies, and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that point … .

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion inasmuch as defendant raised triable issues of fact whether it had violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent … . Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant provided eye protection, or made such available, to plaintiff on the day of the accident and, if so, whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent in refusing to use the eye protection. Summary judgment to plaintiff is therefore inappropriate … . We note, in any event, that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff[] established that defendant violated [12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a)], any such violation does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’ ” … . Quiros v Five Star Improvements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09713, 4th Dept 12-31-15

LABOR LAW (241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM USE OF NAIL GUN)/NAIL GUN (LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON EYE INJURY)

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