You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

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.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY REFUSING TO ATTEND THE TRIAL AND DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT CONCLUDED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction after he was tried in absentia. Defendant was properly denied a request for new counsel. Defendant then directed his attorney not to participate in the trial and defendant did not attend the trial. Defense counsel did not participate, except to make a motion for a trial order of dismissal outside the presence of the jury. The two-justice dissent would have reversed on ineffective assistance grounds, concluding that defense counsel should have participated in the trial, despite defendant’s directive:

Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant waived the right to effective assistance of counsel by directing defense counsel not to participate in the proceedings … . * * * When the court had defendant brought into the courtroom and informed him that he had the right to be present for trial and participate in his defense, defendant again objected to the entire proceeding, reiterated that he had fired defense counsel, refused to answer the court’s questions, and renewed his request for substitute counsel. When the court responded that defendant would not receive another attorney but had the right to proceed pro se, defendant left the courtroom. Defense counsel subsequently informed the court that he intended to follow defendant’s directive not to participate in the proceedings. The trial was then held in defendant’s absence. Defense counsel was present but did not participate, except to move, outside the presence of the jury, for a trial order of dismissal.

We conclude that, under these circumstances, defendant waived his right to effective assistance of counsel … . Defendant’s “desire to prevent counsel’s participation, coupled with his adamant refusal to represent himself, translates into an intentional failure to avail himself of his constitutional right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]), and he must therefore “accept the decision he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, and the consequences of his intentional actions and choices” … . People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 03245. Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Defendant did not attend the trial and directed his attorney not to participate in the trial. Defense counsel did not participate. The majority held defendant had waived his right to effective assistance. A two-justice dissent argued defense counsel’s failure to participate constituted ineffective assistance and would have ordered a new trial.

 

, ,

IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the release signed by plaintiff after a car accident was the result of mutual mistake. At the time plaintiff signed the release it appeared her injuries, including whiplash, involved only her cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. After signing the release she was diagnosed as having suffered a mild traumatic brain injury:

… [I]nasmuch as the submissions indicate that plaintiff had been diagnosed with neck and back injuries only at the time she signed the release and that plaintiff’s symptoms were not medically attributed to postconcussive syndrome until after the execution of the release with additional uncertainty in the interim, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether, at the time the release was executed, the parties were under “[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury,” i.e., a traumatic brain injury … . We therefore … reinstate the complaint. DiDomenico v McWhorter, 2024 NY Slip Op 02634, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A release signed when both parties are not aware of an existing injury may be invalid as the result of mutual mistake.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE AIR BAG UNEXPECTEDLY DEPLOYED, CAUSING INJURY; DEFENDANT FORD’S EXPERT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CAUSE OF THE DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRODUCT DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Ford Motor did not present sufficient expert evidence to warrant summary judgment in this “unexpected-air-bag-deployment” case:

Just prior to the airbag’s deployment, decedent’s vehicle had collided with a deer. After the collision, decedent parked his vehicle on the side of the road, then he looked to his right to check on his passengers in the vehicle and looked to the left to see the deer. At that point the airbag deployed. * * *

It is well settled that a strict products liability cause of action may be established by circumstantial evidence, and thus a plaintiff ” ‘is not required to prove the specific defect’ ” in the product … . “In order to proceed in the absence of evidence identifying a specific flaw, a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to defendants” … . ” ‘Proof that will establish strict liability will almost always establish negligence’ ” … . * * *

Ford Motor’s expert failed to assert that there existed a likely cause of the unexpected deployment of the airbag that was “not attributable to any defect in the design or manufacturing of the product,” and therefore Ford Motor failed to meet its burden on its motion with respect to the strict products liability and negligence causes of action … . Keem v Ford Motor Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02632, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Defendant Ford Motor did not present sufficient expert evidence to warrant summary judgment in this products liability/negligence action based upon the alleged unexpected deployment of an air bag.

 

,

A DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET SUBMITTED PAST THE 60-DAY DEADLINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the deposition errata sheet should have been struck because it was submitted after the 60-day period expired:

Supreme Court erred in denying their joint motion to the extent that it seeks to strike plaintiff’s errata sheet inasmuch as the errata sheet was untimely (see CPLR 3116 [a]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. CPLR 3116 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o changes to the transcript may be made by the witness more than sixty days after submission to the witness for examination.” It is undisputed that plaintiff did not submit the errata sheet within 60 days of her deposition, and submitted it over a month after the 60-day period expired, in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reasons for the lateness under the circumstances did not constitute a good cause for the delay (see CPLR 2004 …). We note that we did not consider the errata sheet when reviewing defendants’ contentions regarding their motions for summary judgment. Pagan v GPK, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02631, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A motion to strike a deposition errata sheet submitted past the 60-day deadline should be granted.

 

,

“GOOD CAUSE” FOR FILING A LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS, NOT IN THE REPLY PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s late summary judgment motion should not have been granted because the initial papers  did not demonstrate “good cause” for the late filing. The “good cause” allegations in defendant’s reply papers should not have been considered:

Defendant’s motion was … untimely … and, thus, defendant was required to demonstrate “good cause” for the untimeliness of the motion in its initial motion papers (CPLR 3212 [a] …). Indeed, “[i]t is well settled that it is improper for a court to consider the ‘good cause’ proffered by a movant if it is presented for the first time in reply papers” … . Inasmuch as it is undisputed here that defendant did not proffer any good cause for the delay in its initial motion papers, the court erred in considering the motion and should have denied it as untimely … . Worden v City of Utica, 2024 NY Slip Op 02628, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: If you make a late summary judgment motion, you must demonstrate “good cause” for being late in the initial motion papers. A “good cause” demonstration in the reply papers should not be considered by the judge.

 

, ,

THE SHOOTER, WHO WAS NEVER FOUND OR IDENTIFIED, WAS A PASSENGER IN A CAR DRIVEN BY DEFENDANT WHEN THE SHOOTER SHOT AT AND MISSED A PERSON SITTING IN A PARKED CAR; THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s attempted murder and assault convictions as against the weight of the evidence, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was no evidence defendant shared the shooter’s intent. It was alleged defendant was the driver when his passenger shot at and missed a person sitting in a parked car. The shooter was never identified. There was no evidence defendant knew the victim:

… [T]he question is whether defendant shared the shooter’s intent to kill or seriously injure the victim. Even assuming, arguendo, that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence … , we conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … . Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of those crimes as charged to the jury … and considering that “a defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … , here the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “shared the [shooter’s] intent to kill” or cause serious physical injury to the victim, or the intent to use the gun unlawfully against the victim … , particularly given the lack of evidence “that defendant knew that the [shooter] was armed at the time defendant transported him” … .

From the dissent:

Defendant drove the vehicle while the shooter fired several times at the parked vehicle in which the victim was sitting in the front passenger seat, and the victim heard someone say “yo” as soon as the gunshots started. The police found the parked vehicle’s driver’s side windows shattered and shell casings on the ground next to the vehicle. A permissible and eminently reasonable inference from the facts was that defendant stopped or slowed down the vehicle in order to allow the shooter to fire several shots at the parked vehicle … . In other words, defendant shared the shooter’s intent to use a gun to kill or cause serious physical injury to the victim and “intentionally aid[ed]” the shooter to engage in such conduct (Penal Law § 20.00). In addition, defendant fled from the scene after the gunshots were fired and collided with another vehicle. The driver of that vehicle testified that, when she asked defendant to exchange paperwork and information, he told her to “move the f*** out of the way,” before he pushed her vehicle with his vehicle and drove off again. People v Lathrop, 2024 NY Slip Op 02618, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court found the evidence of attempted murder legally sufficient but the verdict against the weight of the evidence (a difficult concept).

 

DEFENDANT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF MISSED A STEP AND WAS THEREFORE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this ladder-fall case raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

We conclude that plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the ladder was “not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” through evidence that plaintiff fell when the ladder suddenly and unexpectedly shifted … . The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of [his] accident”… . We conclude that defendant met that burden through evidence suggesting that plaintiff fell from the ladder because he missed a step while descending, not because the ladder shifted or otherwise failed … .

From the dissent:

… [E]ven if there was non-hearsay evidence that plaintiff mis-stepped and missed a rung while descending the ladder, defendant still does not raise a triable question of fact with respect to proximate cause. “It is well settled that [the] failure to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … and, here, defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s allegations that defendant failed to properly erect, secure or place the ladder to prevent it from shifting. Missing a rung while descending the ladder is not an act of “such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a cause sufficient to relieve [defendant] of liability” … . Krause v Industry Matrix, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02653, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here evidence plaintiff “missed a step’ raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder.

 

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