You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS TO PROCEED TO A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY, ASKING DEFENDANT IF HE HAD ANY WEAPONS OR DRUGS; SEIZURE WHEN DEFENDANT WALKED AWAY WAS ILLEGAL.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because it determined the suppression motion should have been granted. Although the arresting officer validly stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger because of tinted windows, validly asked about defendant’s identity and destination, and validly asked defendant to step out of the car, there was no valid basis for asking defendant if he had any weapons or drugs. The escalation of the officer’s questioning, based only on defendant’s nervousness and not on a grounded suspicion of criminal activity, was not justified. Therefore the officer’s seizure of defendant when defendant walked away and did not obey the officer’s command to stop was illegal. The cocaine, which was disposed of by the defendant during the illegal pursuit, should have been suppressed:

 

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that, when defendant responded to his level one inquiries, defendant appeared fidgety, grabbed at his pants pockets, looked around, and gave illogical and contradictory responses to the officer’s questions, which prompted the officer to ask defendant whether he had any weapons or drugs. With that question, the officer “proceed[ed] to the next level of confrontation, the common-law inquiry,’ which involves invasive questioning’ focusing on the possible criminality’ of the subject” … . That escalation was not supported by the requisite founded suspicion of criminality … . Defendant’s nervousness and the discrepancies in his explanation of where he was going did not give rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … .

Defendant responded to the officer’s level two inquiry by saying, “you’re harassing me,” and then walking away. The encounter escalated further to a level three seizure when the officer commanded him to stop, defendant continued to walk away, and the officer pursued defendant with a taser … . We reject the People’s contention that defendant’s conduct provided the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminality … . “Flight alone is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . Finally, we conclude that defendant’s disposal of the bags containing cocaine during the officer’s pursuit was precipitated by the illegality of that pursuit … . Thus, the court erred in refusing to suppress the bags of cocaine. People v Hightower, 2016 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)

SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE: COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PROMISING TO OBTAIN TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE THE PRIOR CONVICTION AND THEN DECIDING NOT TO ORDER THE TRANSCRIPTS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant, who was sentenced as a second felony drug offender, should have been afforded a hearing to substantiate a constitutional challenge to a prior conviction. County Court indicated the transcripts of the prior proceedings would be provided, but ultimately sentenced defendant without providing them:

 

… [T]he court abused its discretion in sentencing him as a second felony drug offender without affording him the opportunity to substantiate his constitutional challenge to the predicate felony conviction with the transcripts of the proceeding underlying that conviction and without holding a hearing for that purpose. Inasmuch as defendant did not controvert the existence of the predicate felony conviction, it was incumbent upon defendant “to allege and prove facts to establish his claim that the conviction was unconstitutionally obtained” … . The record establishes that defendant, who was proceeding pro se, alleged certain constitutional violations in writing, and repeatedly and timely requested the necessary transcripts in order to prepare his constitutional challenge. The court promised to obtain the transcripts for defendant, acknowledged on the scheduled hearing date its oversight in failing to act on that promise and, upon being challenged by defendant at a rescheduled hearing, ultimately admitted that, after months of adjournments, it had decided not to order the transcripts as it had previously promised. Although there is no requirement that a trial court obtain such transcripts on a defendant’s behalf, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court should not have proceeded to sentencing without at least attempting to obtain the transcripts sought by defendant and providing defendant a hearing on his constitutional challenge to the predicate felony conviction … . People v Farmer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01095, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCE, COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)/SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (COURT ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CHALLENGE PRIOR CONVICTION)

, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to substitute nunc pro tunc an affidavit of merit and amount due in a foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff could not confirm the proper execution of the original affidavit (a requirement of an administrative order of the chief administrative judge) and sought to substitute the original with an identical affidavit, the proper execution of which could be confirmed. Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The Fourth Department held that the dismissal was not warranted and CPLR 2001 permitted the substitution:

 

” A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he fact that . . . plaintiff’s [new] attorney[s] attempted to comply, in good faith, with an Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge that did not exist at the time that the action was commenced, or at the time [the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted], does not qualify as such an extraordinary circumstance’ ” that would support a sua sponte dismissal … . Indeed, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s attorney[s] discover[] that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that plaintiff is not “effectively required to commence an entirely new action” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to substitute the affidavit of merit and amount due. “CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Here, we conclude that the substitution of the original affidavit of merit and amount due with a new, substantively identical affidavit of merit and amount due was a ministerial amendment permitted by CPLR 2001 and CPLR 5019 (a) inasmuch as the change affected only plaintiff’s ability to comply with the Administrative Order, and “[t]he attorney affirmation is not itself substantive evidence” … . We further conclude that “[n]o substantial right of [defendant .. .would] be affected by the court’s substitution” … . Indeed, that defendant did not reside in the subject property when plaintiff commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and the property was vacant at that time, and he never joined this action nor made any effort to contest the foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Watanabe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01096, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)

, ,

ORDER ENTERED ON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE; ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE.

In a Family Court matter, the Fourth Department noted that no appeal lies from an order entered by consent. The correct remedy is a motion to vacate the order:

 

Respondent mother appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate an order of fact-finding and disposition, which was entered on the consent of the parties. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in denying the motion on the sole ground that a direct appeal from that order was pending. It is well settled that “[n]o appeal lies from an order entered upon the parties’ consent” … and, indeed, we dismissed the mother’s appeal from the consent order for that very reason … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, the mother’s sole remedy was ” to move in Family Court to vacate the order, at which time [she] [could] present proof in support of [her] allegations of duress, proof which is completely absent from this record’ ” … . Matter of Annabella B.C. (Sandra L.C.), 2016 NY Slip Op 01064, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

APPEAL (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER, ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE)/FAMILY LAW (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION, ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE)

,

COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have anulled the respondent college’s ruling as arbitrary and capricious. The controversy concerned the hiring of a business manager by the student government (Brockport Student Government or BSG). Although BSG had the power to hire a manager at approximately $50,000 a year, the college, which must ultimately approve the hiring, rejected it and engaged a managing service for $20,000 less. Because the college’s ruling had a rational basis, it could not be deemed arbitrary and capricious simply because the reviewing court would have decided differently. The Fourth Department explained what “arbitrary and capricious” means:

 

…[T]the court erred in determining that their denial of BSG’s budget allocation for a business manager was arbitrary and capricious. It is well established that “[a]n action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts . . . An agency’s determination is entitled to great deference and, [i]f the [reviewing] court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency” … . Here, we conclude that respondents’ discretionary determination to reject BSG’s proposed $49,800 salary for a business manager which was based on a comparison of the “hiring practices and compensation rates of other campus-affiliated organizations”… . Matter of Brockport Student Govt. v State Univ. of N.Y. at Brockport, 2016 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE’S REJECTION OF REQUEST BY STUDENT GOVERNMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)/ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)

, ,

DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord should not have been granted summary judgment in this lead-paint-injury action.  [The case presents another example of a defendant’s failure to affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in summary-judgment-motion papers.] Defendant failed to demonstrate, inter alia, the absence of a hazardous condition and her lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition. On the issue of constructive notice, the court wrote:

In Chapman, the Court of Appeals [92 NY2d 9] addressed constructive notice, writing that “a triable issue of fact [on notice] is raised when [the evidence] shows that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (id. at 15). Here, it is undisputed that defendant retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs; that she knew that the residence was constructed before lead-based paint was banned; and that she knew that young children lived in the apartment. Rodrigues v Lesser, 2016 NY Slip Op 00836, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

,

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS CAUSES OF ACTION NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED.

In finding the pleading insufficient for malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action, the Fourth Department explained the flaws:

Where, as here, the underlying action is civil in nature, the party alleging a claim for malicious prosecution must allege a special injury … . In the instant case, defendant “fail[ed] to plead that the civil proceeding involved wrongful interference with [his] person or property” … . Instead, defendant alleged damages amounting to “the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending a lawsuit,” which is insufficient to constitute a special injury for a claim of malicious prosecution … .

To the extent that defendant contends that the second counterclaim is for abuse of process and not malicious prosecution, we conclude that it must still be dismissed as well. “Insofar as the only process issued [here] was a summons, the process necessary to obtain jurisdiction and begin the lawsuit, there was no unlawful interference with [defendant’s] person or property because the institution of a civil action by summons and complaint is not legally considered process capable of being abused” … . Defendant alleges that plaintiff acted maliciously in bringing the action, but “[a] malicious motive alone . . . does not give rise to a cause of action for abuse of process” … . Reszka v Collins, 2016 NY Slip Op 00807, 4th Dept 2-5-16

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (WHERE UNDERLYING ACTION IS CIVIL, SPECIAL INJURY MUST BE PLED)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (MALICIOUS  MOTIVE ALONE DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK ANNULMENT OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIROMMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA); PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE “ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY.”

In an action seeking to annul a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Fourth Department determined the petitioners did not allege an environmental injury, and therefore did not have standing to bring the petition. The petition concerned the construction of an Erie Community College building on the Amherst campus. Apparently, the underlying basis for the petition was the fact that that the new construction was not in the City of Buffalo, but rather was in a suburb. The court explained that the “injuries” described by the petitioners, such as difficulty in commuting to the new location, were not the type of “environmental injury” contemplated by SEQRA:

 

Despite the responsibility of every citizen to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the environment, there is a limit on those who may raise environmental challenges to governmental actions … . Those seeking to raise SEQRA challenges must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

Here, petitioners failed to establish that they have suffered an environmental injury. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, each petitioner submitted an affidavit discussing how he had been allegedly harmed. Petitioner Wilfred Turner stated that, as a student at ECC, he would be harmed by the proposed construction because he did not own a motor vehicle, and it would be both expensive and inconvenient for him and other similarly situated students to use public transportation to attend classes at the Amherst Campus. Petitioner Joel Giambra, the former County Executive of Erie County, stated that, if the proposed facility were constructed on the Amherst Campus instead of within the City of Buffalo, “[he] would be harmed in that all of the work [he had] done and all of the procedures [he had] fought for would be shown to have been useless.” Finally, petitioner Joseph Golombek, Jr., a City Council member for the City of Buffalo (City), stated that he would be harmed because of the “unfavorable decision on the placement of the facility” inasmuch as his “constituents [would] certainly judge [him] according to how well he accomplished [his] tasks,” such as safeguarding the City from “adverse economic decisions” and “promot[ing] the expansion of business and economic opportunity within the City.” None of those alleged injuries constitutes an environmental injury under SEQRA … . Matter of Turner v County of Erie, 2016 NY Slip Op 00806, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ANNUL NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA)/STANDING (SEQRA, PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ANNUL NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA)

,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED.

in finding suppression of defendant’s statements was properly denied, the Fourth Department explained that an illegal arrest will not require the suppression of statements if the statements were “sufficiently attenuated” from the arrest:

 

… [E]ven assuming that defendant was illegally arrested, “defendant’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality” … . “[A] confession that is made after an arrest without probable cause is not subject to suppression if the People adequately demonstrate that the inculpatory admission was attenuated’ from the improper detention; in other words, it was acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality’ ” … . In determining whether there has been attenuation, courts must consider “the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Here, defendant was not interrogated until almost 2½ hours after his arrest … . He was given Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation, which is an “important” attenuation factor … . Before defendant was interrogated, a codefendant implicated defendant in at least one of the crimes, which constituted a significant intervening event and provided the police with probable cause … . People v Buchanan, 2016 NY Slip Op 00800, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/EVIDENCE (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction on several counts charging sexual offenses because the jury instructions allowed consideration of theories not alleged in the indictment or bill of particulars. Therefore it was not possible to determine whether an uncharged theory was a basis for the jury’s verdict:

 

Although defendant did not object to the court’s instructions and thus did not preserve his contention for our review, we conclude that “preservation is not required” …, inasmuch as “defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried only on the crimes charged,” as limited by either the bill of particulars or the indictment itself … . Where the court’s jury instruction on a particular count erroneously contains an additional theory that differs from the theory alleged in the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars, and the evidence adduced at trial could have established either theory, reversal of the conviction on that count is required because there is a possibility that the jury could have convicted the defendant upon the uncharged theory … . Indeed, such an error cannot be deemed harmless because it is impossible for an appellate court reviewing a general verdict to ascertain on which theory the jury convicted the defendant or whether the jury was unanimous with respect to the theory actually charged in that count … . People v Graves, 2016 NY Slip Op 00853, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT CHARGED, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT CHARGED, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)

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