You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, noted that a judge’s failure to rule on a trial order of dismissal motion does not constitute a denial of the motion. Therefore an appellate court cannot rule on the evidentiary issue raised in the motion and must send the matter back for a ruling:

The failure of a trial court to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal cannot be deemed a denial of that motion, and thus we must hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Because the failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial of the motion an appellate court cannot address the issue and must remit for a ruling by the trial court.

 

, ,

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting both the direct testimony and the cross-examination on a specific topic. The judge only provided the direct testimony and erroneously told the jury the cross-examination did not address the topic:

… [T]he jury submitted a note requesting, inter alia, a readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.” The court responded to the jury’s request by reading back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. The court did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident, including questions about the victim’s earlier statement to the police describing a conversation that she had with defendant outside the car and questions regarding her statement to the police on the day of the incident that the driver of a car attempted to pull her into the car through the window. The court also instructed the jury that only direct examination included questions with respect to the victim being inside the car and, despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident. A meaningful response to a request for a readback of testimony “is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back … . People v Dortch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03283, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the jury requested a readback of the direct and cross on a specific topic. The judge provided only the direct which did not constitute a meaningful response to the jury note. New trial ordered.

 

,

ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS TO A RECREATIONAL EASEMENT ARE NECESSARY PARTIES BUT NOT ALL WERE INCLUDED AS PLAINTIFFS; ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED, THE ACTION MAY BE RECOMMENCED WITH ALL THE PROPER PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined all the necessary parties were not included in this suit seeking a declaration of the rights of property owners with respect to a recreational easement:

CPLR 1001 (a) provides, in relevant part, that all “[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants.” It is well established that “[t]he absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . In an action seeking to determine the extent of a recreational easement, the owners of all parcels of land burdened or benefitted by the easement are necessary parties because there is a potential that their real property rights will be affected by the outcome of the litigation … . Inasmuch as owners of real property who are not currently named as parties may be affected by the outcome of litigation concerning the subject parcel, we reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint without prejudice (see CPLR 1003). Plaintiffs are thus “not precluded from recommencing the action in the proper manner naming all necessary parties” … . Follett v Dumond, 2024 NY Slip Op 03272, Fourth Dept 6-4-24

Practice Point: All property owners who may be affected by a declaration of rights to a recreational easement are necessary parties.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint, even though the note of issue and certificate of readiness had been filed. Defendant was unable to show any prejudice from the proposed amendment. The case was brought as a slip and fall which had been dismissed because plaintiff’s decedent did not identify the cause of the fall. Plaintiff sought to add a cause of action for negligent discharge from the hospital where the slip and fall occurred, which sounds in medical malpractice:

While “[i]t is well settled that [l]eave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” … , that policy does not apply “on the eve of trial,” and once a case has been certified ready for trial “there is a heavy burden on [a] plaintiff to show extraordinary circumstances to justify amendment by submitting affidavits which set forth the recent change of circumstances justifying the amendment and otherwise giving an adequate explanation for the delay” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the delay, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying the cross-motion for leave to amend the amended complaint to add a medical malpractice cause of action. Nevertheless, because defendant failed to establish any prejudice that would result from plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend, if further discovery is conducted, we modify the order in the exercise of our discretion by granting plaintiff leave to amend his amended complaint to assert a cause of action for the allegedly negligent discharge of decedent from defendant’s facility, and, further, striking the note of issue and certificate of readiness to allow for additional discovery … . Chapman v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the post-note-of-issue motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action requiring further discovery was granted because the defendant was unable to demonstrate any prejudice.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the People, who initially erroneously asserted the complainant did not have a criminal record, did not comply with their discovery obligations and therefore the initial certificate of compliance (COC) and ready-for-trial announcement were illusory. The matter was sent back for the court to determine the motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. On remittal County Court is to consider whether defense counsel met the statutory requirement that the defense alert the People to any defects in the COC of which defense counsel is aware. The two-justice dissent argued the People had exercised due diligence to determine whether the complainant had a criminal record and that, therefore, the initial COC indicating she had no convictions was not improper:

[The People’s] [r]eliance on the report provided by the OCSO [Ontario County Sheriff’s Office] may have been in good faith, but “while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence” … . The DA’s office, as a qualified agency entitled to access such information maintained pursuant to statute by DCJS [New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services], did not mention any pre-COC attempts to obtain the complainant’s criminal history record from DCJS (see Executive Law §§ 835 [9]; 837 [6]; 845-b), nor did the DA suggest that the People, prior to filing the initial COC, ever checked their own files to determine whether the complainant—their prime witness on whose testimony the success of the prosecution would depend—had a criminal history. Instead, the People relied entirely on a non-DCJS report provided by the OCSO that appeared to have been prepared by an unidentified third-party responsible for running background checks, and the People did not independently check the complainant’s repository to determine whether the complainant had a criminal history until prompted by defense counsel’s request for a judicial subpoena, at which point the People easily obtained and disclosed the complainant’s certificates of conviction … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the People’s explanation for the discovery lapse was insufficient … .

… We … remit the matter to County Court to determine whether the People were ready within the requisite time period … , including the applicability and effect, if any, of defendant’s obligation under CPL 245.50 (4) (b)—which became effective during the pendency of the prosecution—to notify or alert the People to the extent he was aware of a potential defect or deficiency related to the COC, which awareness was a disputed issue before the court … . People v Mitchell, 2024 NY Slip Op 03256, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: The People must exercise due diligence in providing discovery. Here the failure to contact the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services to determine whether the complainant had a criminal record rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory (the accompanying certificate of compliance erroneously stated the complainant had no prior convictions).

Practice Point: Defense counsel has a statutory duty to report to the People any defects in the certificate of compliance of which the defense is aware. Here it was alleged defense counsel knew of the complainant’s criminal record and did not alert the People. The court may consider the failure to notify the People of a defect in the certificate of compliance in determining a speedy-trial motion.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff sufficiently identified the cause of her slip and fall and defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

… [D]efendants’ own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether a dangerous condition existed on the premises. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, who testified that she fell “on something slippery.” Although plaintiff did not see anything on the floor before she fell, she testified that “the back of [her] sweatshirt, the back of [her] legs,” and her “entire back” were damp after she fell and that the floor was “really shiny[ and] glossy” and had a “medicinal stench.” Plaintiff also testified that she told the store manager that “there was something on the floor that [she] slipped on” and denied having described the slippery condition as “droplets of water” on the floor. We therefore conclude that defendants’ submissions raised triable issues of fact whether something other than water, incidental to the use of the bathroom, was on the floor “constitut[ing] an ‘unreasonably dangerous condition’ ” … . We further conclude that, “[a]lthough plaintiff was unable to identify the precise cause of her fall,” her testimony regarding the shiny, glossy floor that smelled medicinal rendered “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” … .

… Although defendants submitted the deposition testimony of the store manager, in which she testified that the store was cleaned by a crew every morning and that employees were charged with remedying any dangerous condition that they observed throughout their shifts, defendants’ evidence “failed to establish that the employees actually performed any [inspection] on the day of the incident, or that anyone actually inspected the area in question before plaintiff’s fall” … . Byrd v Target, 2024 NY Slip Op 03252, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff sufficiently identified the substance that caused her slip and fall in the bathroom as something other than water (a medicinal stench).

Practice Point: Defendants failed to prove the area was inspected close in time to the fall. Evidence of routine cleanings is not enough to show the lack of constructive notice.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WHILE INCARCERATED; HE MADE SERIOUS EFFORTS TO RECONNECT WITH THE CHILDREN AFTER HIS RELEASE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT RATHER THAN PERMANENTLY TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father, after his release from prison, made efforts to reconnect with his children which warranted a suspended judgment rather than permanent termination of his parental rights. While incarcerated father had not cooperated with efforts to place the children:

A suspended judgment “provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child” … . Notably, we may substitute our discretion for that of the trial court even in the absence of an abuse of discretion … , and here we conclude that a suspended judgment, rather than termination of parental rights, was in the children’s best interests … . At the time of the dispositional hearing—just two months after his release from prison—the father had found full-time employment, participated in weekly visitation with the children, had started communicating regularly with the children’s foster family regarding the children, and was in the process of finding housing and completing a mental health evaluation and parenting classes, while the children were reportedly happy to be visiting with the father regularly. “Given the child[ren]’s . . . young age, [the father’s] recommencement of regular visitation, . . . the sustained efforts on the part of [the father following his release from prison], and the Legislature’s express desire to return children to their natural parents whenever possible” … , we conclude that the father “should have been granted a ‘second chance’ in the form of a suspended judgment” … . Matter of Rodcliffe M., Jr. (Rodcliffe M., Sr.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03267, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the option of issuing a suspended judgment to give a parent a second chance to avoid termination of parental rights.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO CORRECTION LAW 168-A (3)(B), WAS DESIGNATED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” BASED SOLELY ON HIS OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION OF A REGISTRABLE SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE; THE CORRECTION LAW AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, determined designating defendant a “sexually violent offender” based solely upon an out-of-state conviction of a non-violent sexual offense violated defendant’s right to due process. The concurrence argued the Correction Law statute which allows such a “sexually violent offender” designation based on an out-of-state conviction is unconstitutional on its face:

We conclude that designating defendant as sexually violent merely because he had an out-of-state sex conviction requiring out-of-state registration, regardless of whether that underlying offense is violent—as is currently required by the text of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b)—bears no rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest of informing the public of threats posed by sex offenders. Indeed, the animating notification purpose of SORA presupposes that the information available to the public as a consequence of a SORA registration is accurate. Where, as here, an offender is designated a sexually violent offender merely because of an out-of-state conviction requiring out-of-state registration, the public is not accurately informed of the true risk posed by the offender. We further conclude that the designation of defendant as a sexually violent offender—augmenting defendant’s SORA registration period from a term of 20 years to his entire lifetime—merely because of the location of the registrable offense does not result in “a criminal designation that rationally fits [defendant’s] conduct and public safety risk” … . People v Malloy, 2024 NY Slip Op 03264, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: The Correction Law (section 168-a (3)(b)) pursuant to which defendant was designated a “sexually violent offender” based solely on an out-of-state registrable offense which did not involve violence was deemed to violate defendant’s right to due process of law.

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE TO HIS INSURANCE CARRIER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined plaintiff’s request for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier should have been denied:

The statements sought in plaintiff’s cross-motion constitute materials “produced solely in connection with the report of an accident to a liability insurance carrier . . . with respect to plaintiff’s claim [that] are not discoverable under CPLR 3101 (g), but rather are conditionally immunized from discovery under CPLR 3101 (d) (2)” … . Plaintiff failed to establish either that he has a “substantial need of the materials” or that he is “unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2] …). Fusco v Hansen, 2024 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point; Here in this traffic-accident case, plaintiff did not demonstrate a need for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier (CPLR 3101(d)(2)).

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action against Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) should not have been dismissed on the ground that the alleged abuser (a pastor) was not an employee. Although the abuser was hired by a third-party church, St. Nicodemus, the ELCA’s and the Synod’s constitution provided that ELCA and Synod exercised control over discipline and termination of the pastor. Therefore there were questions of fact about ELCA’s and Synod’s status as employers:

… According to the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws, the authority to discipline pastors within the ELCA was granted to the synods and the ELCA. The authority to remove a pastor from the roster of ordained ministers remained with the synods and the ELCA. Once a pastor was removed from the roster of ordained ministers, a congregation that chose to retain that pastor could be removed from the ELCA. The entire disciplinary process was created by and governed by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised an issue of fact whether the ELCA and the Synod exercised sufficient control over the retention and supervision of plaintiffs’ alleged abuser so as to constitute his employers … . PB-20 Doe v St. Nicodemus Lutheran Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although the pastor accused of abuse was hired by a specific Lutheran church (St. Nicodemus), the defendants Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) had the power to discipline and terminate the pastor. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendants were the pastor’s employers such that the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action should not have been 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